Systemic Innovation of Education

8/12/2019 Systemic Innovation of Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/systemic-innovation-of-education 1/32

SYSTEMIC INNOVATION OF EDUCATION:

FORGING ACTION, GAINING MOMENTUM, SHIFTING PARADIGM

Cornelis Adrianus (Kees-Jan) van DorpEuropean Society for the Systemic Innovation of Education

The Netherlands



Journal for the Systemic Innovation of Education (JSIE)

Available online at http://www.essie-society.org

JSIE, Volume 1 (2011), Issue 1, pp. 1-31

© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

1

SYSTEMIC INNOVATION OF EDUCATION: FORGING ACTION,GAINING MOMENTUM, SHIFTING PARADIGM

Cornelis Adrianus (Kees-Jan) van Dorp

European Society for the Systemic Innovation of EducationThe Netherlands

Abstract

Deep societal change affects our modern society with very strong repercussion

for our educational system. The problem though is that many individuals

experience change in compartmentalised, separate and seemingly independentways. Most live in medias res i.e., not grasping the whole picture and having no

view on the interconnected whole. With familiar and traditional structures

vanishing, many in education feel disoriented and are left disempowered. Tocounter the problems of our modern time, there is an urgent need to frame the

developments more coherently and provide a systemic response, a responsewhich incorporates the best of learning. Systemic innovation intends to revisit andrestructure the organisation of the educational ecosystem, i.e., educational

processes, stakeholder models and funding systems, in light of a much broader

discussion to move onward. Debating the restructuring of education in view of

systemic change, must be done with open eyes to all interests, for change to beforged and results to cater proficiency and prosperity. Priorities for systemic

innovation must be addressed in accordance with society, i.e., the anticipated

strengths and weaknesses of civil society, government, education and business.Lessons must be learned from paradigmatic change in such industries as IT and

telecom; witnessing both intensive competition as well as cooperation between

old and new players, including acts of takeovers and mergers. To influence thedevelopments in education and overcoming an innovation gap, proactive

measures must be taken: support must be gained to dynamically configurenetworks for systemic innovation throughout different sectors of education. Inthis article, the author presents a discourse and synopsis on the systemic

innovation of education. It is a prelude to a much wider appeal to join forces:

forge action, gain momentum and shift paradigm.

Keyword: Systemic, Innovation, Education, Reform, Discourse, Change,

Paradigm.

1. Époques and learning paradigms

Societies have been characterised by the different ways in which they deal withthe production and distribution of their goods and services (Bosma et al., 2009).Characteristics of three societies, we shall outline below i.e., archetypes in theview of many: the agricultural (labour-driven) society, the industrial (replication-

based) society, and the innovation (learning-based) society (Figure 1). Each of

these societies is described by the characteristics of its organisation, followed by

an elaboration on the learning paradigm it has associated.

http://www.essie-society.org/








© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

2

Innovation Society

Industrial Society

Agricultural Society

Figure 1. Three societies

1.1 The agricultural society

The agricultural society is one in which people depend on hunting, fishing, and

food gathering for their survival, it is a society which is based on agriculture as its

prime means for support. Kuhnen highlights many different aspects of this societyin his publications (Kuhnen, 1982, 1991, 1995). By learning to perform

domestication of animals and the growing of crops, people become in control

over their own food production. People no longer have to roam out any more forfood, but can settle in one area. This type of society has dominated as the main

form of socio-economic organisation for most of human history. Although it does

acknowledge other means of livelihood and work habits, the agricultural societymostly relies on farming. One identifies societies deploying the agricultural

(labour-driven) system by a number of distinguishing features: domestication,farming, community-based, family cohesion, labour intensive, learning by doing,and labour being the most important production factor.

Back to education. In the early agricultural economy, farmers grew crops and

produced livestock mainly for one’s own existence. The agricultural economywas largely based upon knowledge needed for the domestication and cultivation

of animals and plants. Knowledge about efficient farming became important to

ensure the survival of families over generations, and to assure the furtherindependence of outsiders. Cultivation encouraged the settlement of stable farm

communities, some of which grew out to be towns. In later stages, production for

one’s own living could be supplemented with craftwork and trade. Trade in the

agricultural economy facilitated the diffusion of many crops and farmingtechniques. The dissemination and adoption of new farming techniquescontributed to farming management and production of larger yields. Having afarm meant a way to realise prolonged security and sustainability. In the

agricultural age, learning was accrued by experience i.e., learning on the changing

outcomes of productivity. Learning was based on learning by doing and on

copying the behaviour of others. The productivity of one farmer could be








© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

3

influenced by a neighbour's behaviour with respect to choices of land use,

livestock cultivation, crop rotation, mechanisation, use of fertilisers, feed, seed, et

cetera. The agricultural craft was typically learned through observation, imitationand practice (experience and experimentation). Skills favouring socialisation and

active experimentation are valuable in such a context.

1.2 The industrial society

The industrial society refers to the deployment of machines, equipment andlabour to generate products. Authors such as Beaudreau (1996) and Hounshell

(1984) have published on the industrial époque. Industrialisation refers to a range

of human activities from handicraft to industrial production. Generally,

industrialisation is directed towards mass production of products for sale toconsumers. In production chains materials are transformed into final products or

are used as semi-final inputs to generate more complex final-products. To enable

mass production for a large population, the industrial system heavily relies on use

of machines and subdivision of labour. One identifies societies with an industrial(replication-based) system, by a number of distinguishing features: work is

institutionalised, regulated, factorised, subdivided and repetitive, and labour andcapital are the most important production factors.

Back to education. In the industrial society, teaching took place in groups, using

cohort-based instruction, and applying a fixed amount of content in a fixedamount of time. Learning and teaching of subjects and levels was quite sequential

and departmentalised, with no coherency to the overall learning process and

personal properties. All pupils learned the same amount of content in the sameamount of time, and all levels needed to be mastered at the same pace. Such an

education system thrives on similar outcomes and achievements. A system like

this, makes good sense when there is no need to educate large numbers of

students to high levels i.e., when production is not in demand of creative andinnovative talent, but rather of high quantity, such as in cases when there is no

need to innovate for market competitiveness but for replication i.e., in a growtheconomy. It is a strategy, that does not stimulate intellectual growth and social

mobility, it does not foster diversity, creativity, talent and excellence; properties

so in demand in the knowledge society. In many respects, the education system in

use in the industrial society, emulates work of production plants, in which production takes place rather mechanically in batch driven processes, with quality

selection at the end of the assembly line.

1.3 The innovation society

The innovation society typically focuses on the conception, introduction and

management of new innovations in terms of products and services. For new

innovations to thrive, knowledge is an important production factor, and learning amost important tool. By application of knowledge, innovation becomes possible.

The innovation society addresses the potential of humans to generate new

knowledge and ideas, to be creative and entrepreneurial, and to stimulate









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

4

Economic optimisation Learning optimisation

Learning Innovation

Cohort

Optimum

Individual

Optimum

innovation and research. Success depends on the system’s potential to generate,

manage and distribute knowledge among its population. Dissemination and

access to knowledge, through social and professional interplay, in conjunctionwith the possibilities of ICT, are pivotal. One identifies societies with an

innovation (learning-based) system, by a number of distinguishing features: open,creative, networked, decentralised, dynamic, inclusive, diverse, empowered, andknowledge as the important production factor. Authors as Vaclav (2005), Rooney

et al. (2005), Drucker (1969, 1993), Machlup (1962), and Arthur (1996) have

published on different aspects of the innovation society.

Back to education. The innovation society no longer services the paradigm of

adapting the learner to the education system, rather the system to the learner.

Instead of the production of cohorts with batch-generating properties, each learnerhas become a unique project: a multi-facetted pedagogical project. Next to

levelling basic knowledge, skills and competences as paramount to the innovation

society, diversification of personal and intellectual properties onward, have become more essential. Catalysing heterogeneity instead of homogeneity has

become key: nurturing batch-transcending properties is the new gold. Shiftingeducational paradigm in this direction in current circumstances, can only berealised by the infusion of new learning innovations. In shifting paradigm, we

propose the concept Dynamic Pedagogical Allocation (DPA). DPA is the targeted

process of infusing learning innovations in education so as to shift the balance

between on the one hand, the economic optimisation of the (traditional) batch-driven education system, and the individual properties of learners and their

cognitive progression, on the other hand (Figure 2). DPA allows more pupils to

be educated to their potential: slow movers don’t hold up the smart learners,whereas fast movers don’t force slow learners to continue. DPA provides more

room for talent to flourish and excellence in diversity to develop. Essential to

DPA is the access to quality-controlled, relevant, and engaging content in avariety of forms and pedagogical models. DPA must enable learners to take in

alternative models of instruction, assessment and tools to help them learn and progress in an optimum way.

Figure 2. Innovation at work









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

5

2. Challenges of the 21st Century

2.1 A social perspective

One of the major changes has been the role and of women in society (McNay,2003). Striking is the change in the position of women with the change caused infertility and child-rearing. There has been a steadily rise of the birth age of the

first child: children being subject of delayed family completion. Many changes

relate to increased employment for women (OECD, 2008). Changes effect the

organisation of work, education, family and childcare. Dual-track home and workcareers for women, have been de-coupled and have shifted towards a more equal

position for women in society, yet changing the structure of traditional family

life. Many material lifestyles now depend on double incomes, and have changedthe family structure. Many families depend on a double income, whilst being

often time poor (OECD, 2001). Basic family experiences have eroded, such as the

joint family meals. Longer working hours of parents or alternating working times,have de-synchronised the family, whereas spaces for family socialising have

dramatically diminished or have become more bilateral instead of multilateral.Apparently, social relations have taken shape around a more compressed view oftime and space: a challenge to social cohesion. The culture of modern family life

with its inherent fragmentation, has also revealed a trend of marital conflicts and

more marital disintegration; in our time, there are more single-parent households

than before (OECD, 1999). More new sibling relationships exist that are formedthrough re-marriages and/or new partnerships. Marital breakdowns may hold the

risk of social exclusion of single parent families and their children, and they

already are in a vulnerable labour market situation. At least for the children,marital breakdown increases the sense of heightened instability and insecurity

(OECD, 1999). It is also striking that consumption habits have defined a major

part of people’s identity. There have been enormous changes in average lifestylesand what children nowadays expect to be their living standard in the future. The

concern can be that high levels of consumption and strengthened materialism isregarded as a defining value in itself. Many young people enjoy more access toconsumption products, and have ever continuing material aspirations (OECD,

2008). One also witnesses declining engagements in memberships of bodies and

other associational activities, and shifts from major public political parties

towards more individualised single item parties. Shifts occur towardsindividualised leisure, social, political and community activities with more

informal and more transient forms of engagement. Developments have led

towards more ‘social’ individualisation, whereas many institution-basedcommunity structures such as cafes, retailers, churches, associations, community

centres, have lost members and are in need to redefine their role (Carnoy, 2001).

All represent a decline of social capital and a potential threat to the social

sustainability of society.

2.2 An economic perspective

Over time, many residential communities changed due to the decline of

agriculture, mining, fishing, and steel production. Factories, at the heart of the









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

6

industrial age, ceased to be the place of employment growth. The economic role

of agriculture diminished, shifting much of country side into urbanisation. In

addition, a massive shift took place towards service employment. Services haveother job employment profiles and different challenges than manufacturing

(OECD, 2005). With the rapid pace of change in services of the tertiary sector,the need for increased up-skilling emerged. Demand for many lower skilled jobshas fallen, hitting the unqualified the most. Moreover, the tertiary sector is far

more dynamic. The move from industry to services along with the dynamics of

that sector, has resulted in more insecurity for many. As job stability drops, many

unqualified and lower qualified notice higher insecurity levels, putting pressureon the lifestyles and families as of difficulties of finding a security match in job

loss. In addition, the increase in the percentage of greying instead of greening

leads to problems with future supply of labour forces and sustainability of socialservices (OECD, 2001). Another problem is that of the fair distribution of

available resources with an ever increasing rise of the planet’s population,

whereas on the local level, regions have to cope with problems of communitycrimp: consequently leading to the pulling back and fusion of local social and

government functions into more centralised structures, which no longer reside inthe direct local community, rather making the community less attractive as achoice of residence. Many of the economic developments and societal shifts

indicate a rather increasing role for the production of knowledge and the

importance of learning (Abramowitz and David, 1996). Knowledge and learning

gain particularly with the introduction of new general purpose technologies suchas ICT. New technologies are introduced in many sectors of economic activity

(Miller, 2001). Although the propagation and the possibility to use the full

potential of much of these new technologies may still take decades, their impactis pervasive and paradigmatic. New technologies such as ICT, Internet, bio- and

nanotechnology as well green technologies, provide new opportunities for driving

comprehensive structural change. The technological advances are considered assignificant as previous radical changes, such as those associated with the steam

engine, electricity and the introduction of the automobile (OECD, 2001).

2.3 An education perspective

Over the last decades, many social, cultural, religious, economic and politicalsystems around the world, have shown an increasing openness and transparency.

In a variety of forms, mobility has been an important driver for crossovers i.e.,

social, economic, academic, political, professional and leisure-wise. Societieshave been transformed by such factors as globalisation, migration, cultural and

ethnical diversity, and secularisation. Change ongoingly effectuates the de-

coupling of social structures, and the increased individualism and fragmentation.

Family structures, community memberships, work and school relationships i.e.,former anchors in socialisation, have become more transient and desynchronised.Governments, cultures, organisations, communities and individuals, adapt tochange, each with different learning curves. The mass media has been an

important driver of change. Media such as television and radio have already been

the prelude for much change in our previous century. Similar to mass media in

the past century, Internet and social media are emerging as rather powerful in this









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

7

century, with the potential to call upon individuals, globally. First effects are

apparent: Internet and social technologies have catalysed change in such countries

with legacy systems: seemingly effectuating a more fair distribution of countryresources and social opportunities. Our modern society has become more media

centred, and the creation and dissemination of knowledge have become morediverse and complex. Currently, knowledge is sourced, combined anddisseminated in many parts of society, formally, informally and non-formally,

with knowledge transfer and learning being facilitated by many of the new media-

centred tools. These developments are challenging the position of education as

the main supplier of knowledge. The impact on education is that it must redefineits role as knowledge provider, and help learn people to effectively deal with

societal change. People must acquire knowledge, skills and competences, to

become responsive to change. They must be learned to exercise choice in face ofa far greater complexity. For education it implies a strategy of opening up to new

domains, and interfacing and brokering with new stakeholders and on different

levels. It also implies rigorously developing and integrating complementarylearning strategies to adapt to new challenges. It includes learning strategies

opening up to the infusion of new technologies and media. People must belearned how to source, combine and judge knowledge, and exercise choice inorder to select on-going learning paths and routes, in a continuously changing

societal landscape. All the above, makes new ways of learning imperative for all,

it calls for the education system to reform, to open up, and become more flexible

and responsive to the needs of modern society.

3. The notion of systemic response

Society’s traditional property of homogeneity has been replaced by increased

heterogeneity. Our contemporary society has moved away from what can betypified as a rather stationary system with stable compartments and activities

cohesively structured by such factors of time, place, space, content, periods, and persons, towards a new dynamic equilibrium, in which society vastlydecompartmentlises, and activities increasingly desynchronise, and where society

is in desperate search for new solutions to maintain (social) cohesion. Systemic

innovation is the logical concept by which to build a response to the many

interrelated changes in our society. As dynamics pervade our society, we need todeal with change and prepare current and next generations. Traditional education

cannot do the job anymore. Legacy education has been a repetitive process of

teaching, characterised by management of cohorts: fixed times, fixed places, fixed pacing and fixed contents. Such methods are not geared towards achieving the

best learning outcomes for each individual, as these particularly do not extend

learning to individual properties. Traditional education is batch-driven with only

eyes for batch-generating properties. Individuals not succeeding in such a systemare typically introduced into craft. However, on transition from the industrialtowards the innovation society, the balance between low-skilled and high skilled jobs has changed dramatically. The innovation society predominantly requires

knowledge workers and has made learning excellence a priority in favour of high

and medium level craft work. In the innovation society, knowledge decays faster

and has become a more dynamic asset. Factual knowledge and traditional transfer









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

8

of knowledge remain important, but no longer on their own. Whereas ‘knowing

what’ will still remain important, ‘knowledge about processes and procedures’,

‘knowledge about combination and application’, ‘knowledge about sourcing andnetworking’, and ‘knowledge about exploitation and valorisation’, have become

essential (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; OECD, 2000). To maintain a competitiveedge, society is in need of creativity, design, problem-solving and innovation.Also, people require more transversal skills and competences, like analytic skills,

self-management and entrepreneurial skills: skills that can be addressed in times

of change. People must participate in lifelong learning in order to adapt to a

variety of new tasks over their working lives, especially with restructuring anddisplacement in an innovation society occurring more frequent. Whereas some

systems in society have been innovating dramatically, for the part of education

the transition towards the innovation society is still in its infancy. Education mustinnovate as well. Education must embrace systems that bring out the best in

learners. Systems must include active recognition and modelling of learners’

properties. The education system must avoid muddling along with systems thatstack learning retardations upon another. Slow progression in one field must be

decoupled from possible progression in other disjunctive fields. Only activeengagement, grounded in learning sciences, pedagogical-, organisational- andICT-driven innovations, will bring about the best in individuals’ learning

achievements. It should counter the deprivation of individual knowledge fields

and enable the better recognition and stimulation of talented fields. A systemic

approach to education will sow the seed for a strengthened attitude towardslearning and will empower future learners with the means to face an ever complex

society. It will require the educational system to research its interdependencies

and dynamically reconfigure its network to meet the new societal requirements.

4. Scientific publications on systemic innovation

Teece (1986) distinguishes two types of innovations: (1) autonomous innovations,and (2) systemic innovations. Autonomous innovations are innovations, which donot require any modification on the part of any other components residing in the

overall system, whereas systemic innovations do require significant change to

other components of the system (Teece, 1996). Chesbrough and Teece (2002)

explain that any systemic innovation for it to become successful, will requiresimultaneous and complementary innovations. Systemic innovation requires

significant adjustments of other parts of the system. This means that benefits of

systemic innovation can be realised only in conjunction with relatedcomplementary innovations. Not one but many complementary innovations need

to come together and be applied throughout the whole chain of system elements

(Chesbrough and Teece, 1996; De Laat, 1999; Teece, 1986). A closer look now

follows on the distinguishing properties of systemic innovation, as extracted fromliterature. In reference to systemic innovation, several authors acknowledge thenotion of significant adjustments in other parts of the system, they are embeddedin (De Laat, 1999; Teece, 1996; Chesbrough and Teece, 1996; Teece, 1986).

Benefits of systemic innovation can only be realised in conjunction with

complementary assets and cannot be pursued independently from other

innovations (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996; Teece, 1986). The presence of









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

9

complementary innovations to enable systemic innovation is also found in

Utterback (1994), Abernathy and Clark (1985), and Hargadon and Douglas

(2001). In Chesbrough (2003), one finds that systemic innovation processes oftenspan beyond the boundaries of the own organisation. Maula et al. (2005)

acknowledge the dependency of other functional building blocks to move other parts of the systemic infrastructure forward. Maula at al. (2005) explain thatsystemic innovation requires multiple simultaneous innovations in other

independent companies, and that it would require coordination with the producers

of the complementary products. Moreover, Maula et al. (2005) state that to ensure

the viability of systemic innovations, systemic innovation even includes thecoordination of (complementary) innovations with direct competitors. Systemic

innovation therefore requires boundary spanning coordination activities, which

include not only intense interaction with suppliers, customers, partners,developers, but also with competitors, so as to provide rich information about

development of different (complementary) elements of systemic innovation

(Gulati, 1999; Powell et al., 1996). We may acknowledge then that systemicinnovation typically entails the coordination of different parts of a value network.

Bröcker et al. (2003) denote systemic innovation by the presence of interactivelinkages between generators, diffusers, exploiters, and commercialisers of newknowledge.

5. The role of coordination and open collaboration

Coordination plays an important role in systemic innovation. External parties are

critical to the success of systemic innovation, but are mostly not under focalcontrol of the corporation (Maula et al., 2005). So it is necessary to have

boundary spanning coordination, implying intense interaction with suppliers,

customers, partners, developers, and competitors to provide rich informationabout the development of different elements of systemic innovation (Gulati,

1999; Powell et al., 1996). Harty (2005) describes the possession of control oversystemic innovation from two perspectives: (1) vertically integrated networksand, (2) vertically disintegrated networks i.e., loose partnerships. He refers to

them as respectively bounded and unbounded (systemic) innovations. In

literature, there are actually two conflicting views on the matter of integration and

partnerships i.e., the intensity of collaboration necessary for the development ofsystemic innovations. One view argues that loose partnership produce more

conflicts of interest than centrally managed organisations, and those conflicts can

hamper the development of systemic innovations, hence the need for more tightintegration (Chesbrough and Teece, 2002; Teece, 1996). Another view argues

that a loose constellation of parties is preferred when technological uncertainty is

high and the capabilities needed for the innovation are not known exactly

(Dittrich et al., 2004; Nooteboom, 2000; Robertson and Langlois, 1995; Sadowskiet al., 2003). The first view by Chesbrough and Teece (2002) and Teece (1996)i.e., the view that systemic innovation should be typically managed in anintegrated and closed-innovation fashion, has been challenged (De Laat, 1999).

The assumption may have worked for many traditional and typically slow-

evolving industries like chemicals, steel, railroads, and petroleum industries,

industries characterised by long product life cycles and high capital intensities,









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

10

but is certainly not true for many of the fast-moving industries such as IT, which

are characterised by high capital intensities but having short product lifecycles.

That systemic innovation could emerge in fast-moving industries, typically pressured by high capital intensities and shrinking product lifecycles, may have to

do with both the necessity of moving business forward and the possibility of risk-spread over a much larger network of autonomous businesses, which reduces therisk of innovation-breakdown for each single company. Innovation increasingly

depends on collaborative processes (Maula et al.,2005). In many industries

nowadays characterised by systemic innovation, one sees open innovation and

open collaboration processes to have become very important (Maula, 2007).

6. Directing networks for systemic innovation

In processes of systemic innovation, firms need to coordinate with producers of

complementary products and in many cases even with direct competitors toensure the viability of the innovation, rather than coordinating solely with the

suppliers and customers, as is frequently the case in closed innovation models. Itis an active shaping process: providing (financial) incentives to suppliers andcustomers to support the evolution of new technology or to develop

complementary products or services (Maula et al., 2005). In systemic innovation,

resource allocation is not only about planning one’s own resources: a large share

of the potential resource pool is located outside corporate boundaries (Maula,2007). Partners and external developer communities make up a resource pool

working on different components of systemic innovation (West, 2003; Franke and

von Hippel, 2003; Hertel et al., 2003; von Hipple and von Krogh, 2003). Creatingtraditional venture divisions with only internal resource allocation, may result in

sub-optimisation of the whole (Maula, 2007). It is evident that for systemic

innovation, companies need new tools for foresight, shaping and coordinating thevalue network and that such management must include a multidimensional actor

and resource planning horizon over the business. According to Maula et al.(2005), companies require alternative models of resource allocation andgovernance. External resource venturing, research collaboration and other new

tools become increasingly important in planning systemic innovations (Maula,

2007). To really carry out activities of systemic innovation, attracting and

retaining commitment of externals is key to pro-active systemic innovation.Signalling one’s own commitment to the innovation process hereby ensures the

commitment of complementary participants to the process (Spence, 1973). Where

the innovation is actively industry-led, the governance model of the network tosteer the process of innovation is essential. Sometimes leadership by a small

group of firms can function as anchors for coordination (Chesbrough, 2003).

Certain industry leaders may be denoted architects, establishing the blueprint of

the whole system’s architecture. One cannot underestimate the time frame and thediversions possible in the planning of systemic innovations. For example, aninnovation network must commit to participation in standardisation processes,which are ran by standardisation organisations and/or industry associations. The

coordination of standardisation of for example new technologies, starts well

before the entry of the actual innovation to the marketplace and predates this with

five to ten years. Such time frame offers a joint direction for a variety of disperse









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

11

research efforts (Maula et al., 2005). During the whole planning period, an active

network shaping process and signalling attentions’ strategy must keep the

network focussed on the evolution of new complementary products. This processis reinforced by for example financial incentives to suppliers and customers to

respond to industry.

7. Systemic innovation of education

Although societal needs have significantly changed over the last decades, manyeducation systems have remained unchanged and have not benefitted from

applying new innovative methods and techniques. They have remained largely

stranded in using teaching techniques of the old industrial époque. Therecognition that the fabric of many societies has changed though, has increased

the urgency to review the way we organise our educational systems, and has

heightened the notion to research appropriate methods for innovation. In systemicchange, raising student achievement is regarded a central goal. In systemic

change, high academic achievements are expected of all students, and toward theend, improvement of teaching and learning must be at the heart of a changeagenda (Parra, 2002). Change must bring significant improvements to the

educational experience of students, families, employees, communities and

society. Systemic transformation must meet the essential needs of an innovation-

based society. Learners need to be empowered to innovate through high qualityeducation, but also through those forms of education which can naturally

complement formal education. A piecemeal change can never be enough to

improve the overall system. According to Parker (1995), a systemic responseshould consist of setting high standards for all students, who then must all be

expected to achieve them. One needs to phrase ambitious outcome expectations

for students, and coordinated policies must be implemented to help to achievethese outcomes. Modern governance models must be complemented to manage

this effectively on the local level. Patch work of policies must be avoided. Thedesign of learning programmes should be such that separate components make alogical and reinforcing system. Components, which do not support each other or

which have contradictory indications, must be eliminated. Trying the components

of the programme and testing it, is a main concern in systemic reform. According

to Parker (1995), systemic change entails development of programmes, performance standards, student assessments, and monitoring systems. Thompson

(1994) by referencing Lewis (1989), describes the view of David Florio of the

National Science Foundation, stating that systemic reform entails a greateremphasis on depth of knowledge, new relationships between people, more

flexible arrangements in education, and restructured time schedules. Conley

(1993) sets forth a framework of twelve dimensions of educational restructuring

that are grouped into three subsets: central, enabling, and supporting variables.Learner outcomes, curriculum, instruction, and assessment make up the centralvariables, labelled as such because they have a powerful direct effect on studentlearning. Enabling variables, also closely related to instruction, consist of learning

environment, technology, school- community relations, and time. Supporting

variables, those further removed from the classroom, consist of governance,

teacher leadership, personnel structures, and working relationships.









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

12

It has been said that systemic change does not refer to change in pieces, in small

amounts, parts or stages. Reigeluth (1999) indicates that if only one element in asystem is changed, no matter where in that system the element resides, it is still

piecemeal change. According to Reigeluth (1999), the key indicator of systemicchange is paradigm change, which she refers to as a significant change in one partof the system which should be accompanied by significant changes in practically

all other parts of the system, due to interrelationships and interdependence among

the parts. For change to be systemic, there would have to be changes throughout

all aspects of the system. Piecemeal changes can produce the appearance ofchange but not much real improvement in outcomes (Harman, 1984). If change

does not cause other elements in the system’s structure to change, the effect on

the greater system would not be referred to as systemic, but piecemeal. Jenlink etal. (1998) define systemic change as an approach that recognises the

interrelationships and interdependencies among the parts of the educational

system, with the consequence that desired changes in one part of the system must be accompanied by changes in other parts that are necessary to support those

desired changes; systemic change recognises the interrelationships andinterdependencies between the educational system and its community, including parents, employers, social service agencies, religious organisations and much

more, with the consequence that all those stakeholders are given active ownership

over the change effort. Squire and Reigeluth (2000) found that a user’s

conception of systemic change depends on their experience and the type ofsystem with which he or she is familiar. According to Squire and Reigeluth

(2000), systemic change would encompass and contain the relationships among

all stakeholders: community members, parents, school and district staff, students,teachers, principals, administrators, and state-level education personnel. These

multiple stakeholders are included and embraced at the earliest stages of the

change effort, and are involved in democratic participation in the change process.Experts may be brought into the process as support, but their main job is to act as

support in the process and not to shape the product of design (Squire andReigeluth, 2000). The OECD (2009) refers to systemic change: any kind ofdynamic, system-wide change that is intended to add value to educational

processes and outcomes.

According to the above OECD reference, systemic innovation aims to improvethe operation of systems, their overall performance, the perceived satisfaction of

the main stakeholders with the system as a whole, or all of the above. As regards

the OECD standpoint, the analysis of systemic innovation involves thecomparative investigation of how education systems or sectors go about initiating

innovation, the processes involved, the knowledge base which is drawn on, and

the procedures and criteria for assessing progress and outcomes. Systemic change

has not been incorporated in policy, at least not in European education policy, and by itself shall be a radical innovation to European policy. In the United States,systemic reform has been subject of debate (Parker, 1995). According to Parker(1995), it is the interaction of the number of policies working in coordination, to

actually be able to achieve the real type of systemic innovation, and not so much

act on some part or component. Unfortunately, the last way of working still

applies to European educational policy. Mindset changes, which are mental








© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

13

positions or outlooks from which people approach problems are critical to

systemic change (La Piana Associates, 2006). Mindset change is brought about

through dialogue, or the process by which a group becomes open to the flow of alarger intelligence and self-examination (Senge, 1990). Although societal needs

have significantly changed over the last decades, a lot of education policies andsystems have remained unchanged and have not benefitted from applying anynew methods and techniques, but have remained stranded in policies and teaching

techniques of the industrial époque.

8. Discourse and synopsis for education

With the intake of literature on systemic innovation, we should be able to draw upa frame of dimensions along which we can discuss systemic change for

education. In relating to previous sections, individual references to systemic

innovation as found in education literature, highlight mere parts or aspects.Logically, as each reference draws upon its own situational problems, experiences

and recommendations and accordingly infers its own conception of systemicinnovation. Omissions and shortcomings in literature are found along the lines of:1) not acknowledging the explicit and joint interdependence of mutually new

innovations for moving onward i.e., the necessity of simultaneous and

complementary innovations, 2) not expressing the dynamics of re-establishing a

network with entirely new players and stakeholders, not present in the system beforehand, 3) not referring to boundary spanning coordination of

(complementary) innovations, even with direct competitors, to ensure the

viability of systemic innovations, 4) forgetting the increasing open manifestationof systemic innovation in terms of open innovation and open collaboration

processes, 5) forgetting the need for alternative models of resource allocation,

risk management and governance for foresight, shaping and coordinating thevalue network, with management taking place over a multidimensional player and

resource planning horizon, 6) omitting the importance of standardisation processes, which are ran by standardisation organisations and/or sectorassociations: coordination starting well before the introduction of the actual

innovation to the market, and predating this with many years, 7) omitting the

need of ‘focus management’ with such incentives as financial stimuli, to keep

supply and demand parties focussed on the co-evolution and convergence ofcomplementary products, 8) accepting that systemic innovation is no longer

confined to traditional slow-cycle sectors but has moved into fast-moving sectors

with shorter product lifecycles such as the ICT sector. This dimension isimportant, as such developments also influence sectors like education, in which

ICT products play a growing role, which will have an impact on educational

processes and products. Unfortunately, no such all-encompassing view as we

devised just here, on systemic innovation, was found in education literature, andno framework was found with which to initiate a much broader discourse. So forsystemic innovation of education to be discussed properly, one needs toencompass all such different dimensions in the discourse before actual

recommendations about moving education forward, in a general sense, can be

made. Below, a concise reiteration of the most important dimensions is given:









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

14

1) Dynamics of actor network configuration

2) Dependency on simultaneous and complementary innovations

3) Boundary spanning dimensions and oft counterintuitive coordination4)

Increasing open manifestations of innovation and collaboration

5)

Introduction of alternative risk, resource and business and governancemodels6)

Importance of network standardisation processes

7) Long term focus and attention management with supply and demand

incentives

8) Dependency on systemic relations with other industries

The aforementioned dimensions, are considered useful to any discourse on

systemic innovation. The generality of the dimensions enables us to insert them inthe specific discussion about education. Additional dimensions however may also

be put forward: dimensions which are more specific to the education system

under discussion. It are dimensions that bare a much closer relationship to the properties and workings of the system. Dimensions of this sort will focus on for

example the ruling paradigms and system views within specific parts of thesystem, the adopted views on management and work practices, and the ingraineddivision of demand and market shares. Such dimensions will allow zooming the

discussion, from general to specific. For the education system, six of these

dimensions are selected and elaborated on, next:

1) Ruling system and paradigmatic views

2)

Ratio, integration and variability of complementary innovations

3) Multi-sector observatory: tracking and recording of compartmentalisedinnovations

4)

Interfacing and complementary systemic alignment: chaining

performance5)

Systemic innovation of non-formal and informal learning processes

6)

Legacy, transition and market restructuring

Ad 1. Ruling system and paradigmatic views

When discussing systemic innovation, one needs to articulate where thediscussion starts and where it ends. Discourse may refer to a whole system such

as a particular institute or a part of a system such as a department, or any other

bounded view on a system such for example an infrastructural view. Abstractsystem views are also possible, like that of discussing a policy or cultural system.

A discourse in education on for example the Bologna Reform may be bounded by

discussing it from viewpoint of e.g. policy system perspective, whereas a

discourse on for example social technologies may be bounded by discussing itfrom e.g. perspective of pedagogical systems, and a discourse on openeducational resources for example may be bounded by discussing from e.g. perspective of course production systems. So, although one may talk about

systemic innovation in many ways, one but should always have in mind that the

system view or paradigm which is applied to the discussion, must be defined.

Strong paradigmatic views may rule in certain systems, whereas making it a









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

15

though call to overcome traditional views and forces. Five systems in education

for which strong paradigmatic views exist, will be discussed next (Figure 3).

Networksystem (5)

Institutionalsystem (4)

Delivery

system (3)

Curriculumsystem (1)

Productionsystem (2)

Figure 3. Five systems with paradigmatic views

1) Breakthrough discoveries in scientific disciplines and related course domainsalways trigger a discussion on the reinterpretation of existing knowledge offered

in curricula. Reorganisation of content, courses and curricula may result. In

addition to discipline-specific innovations generating new knowledge, also pedagogical innovations are able to provoke systemic change. Pedagogical

innovations are driven by discoveries in the neurosciences and learning sciences.

In dealing with either discipline-related or pedagogical breakthroughs, networks

of often external and complementary – didactic or pedagogical- innovators are to be configured, newly. It results in fresh network formation and engagement with

new actors, new knowledge, new work approaches, new models, new methods

and new tools, which will eventually result in reformed versions of courses,curricula, and associated tutoring and evaluation.

2) Course production systems are also subject to disruptive innovation. Legacy production is turning from traditional textbook-based systems to those which

increasingly rely on ICT, electronic learning objects, and the exchange of learning

objects with other complementary production systems. Moreover, parties which

have traditionally been involved in the course production and publication, seem to be changing from those that represent the traditional publishing industry, towards

an increasing larger share of parties able to deliver digital learning resources. Addup to that, the development of exchanging digital learning resources betweenuniversity peer producers in an increasingly open manner, and it will mean a

reorientation on the part of the traditional publishing industry on the role it plays

in education industry, and the business models it applies to it.









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

16

3) Simultaneously, the course delivery system is changing from a traditional face

to face education system with ample contact hours, into one with a far larger

share of autonomous learning and group work, enforcing a reduction of thetraditional hours of face to face cohort teaching. These developments are typically

supported by the technological possibilities of blended learning and distancelearning. In cooperation with complementary innovators, delivery models seem tomove away from teacher and classroom-based models of knowledge transfer,

towards more inclusive and asynchronous models with an increasing emphasis on

(more) learner centricity, whereas strongly marketed, yet often lacking the

grounded pedagogics and learning retention mechanisms.

4) The ruling institutional paradigm is very important in terms of realising change

in the before mentioned three systems. Legacy institutions, for example,representing traditional hierarchical, social and cultural systems, risk smothering

and extinguishing the flame of change as innovations need to pass multiple

echelons and decision structures. At the very least, such structures slow downchange considerably.

5) Finally, the ruling network paradigm is also important. Networking is acontributing factor to paradigmatic change. Proximity in networks allows the

flame of change to be passed over to different institutions in the network, shifting

the balance within the network as a whole.

In retrospect of all five systems discussed here, caution is needed. Much of

educational change is seemingly rooted in technological change. Technological

innovation of education is not systemic change, but rather autonomousinnovation. Systemic change of education implies a relationship with

complementary innovations such as those that can be realised by simultaneously

innovating educational work practice to discoveries in the learning andneurosciences, generating new knowledge on the relation between such variables

as technology, cognitive processing and learning; i.e., by taking on board the roleof brain development, age and sexes. Overruling this fundamental principle, inthe end, can lead to systemic failure, and represents a great danger for DPA.

Ad 2. Ratio, integration and variability of complementary innovations

Systemic innovation depends on knowledge and innovations generated in

adjacent and complementary domains. As education is concerned, innovationsfrom ICT and the learning and neurosciences, dominate. With education being

subdivided into target groups, systemic solutions must carefully denote the

properties of the target group and configure the innovation system accordingly.

The integration and the ratio of complementary innovations in systemic solutionsmay vary. Learner and learning properties direct at best how solutions should takeshape. The interplay of knowledge from ICT innovations on the one hand andneurosciences and learning sciences on the other hand, make way for grounded

learning solutions. System breakthroughs i.e., what works and what doesn’t, will

differ along education systems. The ratio and integration of learning innovations

in systemic solutions, is one of great consideration.









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

17

In consecutively sweeping education systems from primary to tertiary, brain

development and physiological properties of sexes are at a float. Accordingly,learning solutions shall be different along these target groups. It is not an easy

task, moreover because of the many learning approaches in existence today, asexemplified by such methods as: cohort teaching (CT), socio-collaborativelearning (SCL), cooperative learning (CL), independent learning (IL),

personalised learning (PL), pre-teaching (PT), and remedial teaching (RT);

whereas CT is legacy, SCL is less formal and more explorative than CL, IL is

more autonomous and PL more relational, and PT is preparative whereas RT isresolving.

With much variables of learners in education at a float, the option of variabilityand choice of methods in solutions is very important, more so to effectively

enable DPA. Only well-thought-out approaches to systemic innovation can bring

education in a new and higher dynamic equilibrium. Figure 4 shows the complexinterrelationship of all of the aforementioned factors. For success on

implementation of systemic innovations, teachers must innovate as well, whereasnot sticking to tradition but actually applying the new pedagogical principleswhen using innovations in the classroom. Systemic innovation is not autonomous

innovation: complementary change of teaching and working practices, is

essential, and training needs to follow up on that.

• Learning

ObjectivesandOutcomes

• Learner and

LearningProperties

• Neuro andLearningSciences

• ICT Innovations

Education

solution

CT

SCL

CL

IL

PL

PT

RT

FUTURE

METHOD

Figure 4. Complex model of factors








© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

18

Pre-primary

education

Primary

education

Secondary

education

Vocational

education

Continuing and adult education

Academic

higher education

Professionalhigher education

Professional training

Vocational

specialisations

Part-time education

Part-time education

D i s t a n c e Post

academic

education

Post

professional

education

Post

vocational

education

Part-time education

D i s t a n c e I n

f o r m a l s p h e r e

N onf or m al s ph er e

Ad 3. Multi-sector observator y: tracking and recor ding of compartmentalised

innovations

The lack of an overall view on educational sectors and sector-spanning learning

progress, is taking on dramatic proportions. One needs to acknowledge that theeducation sector is not homogenous, but a rather heterogeneous whole, whichcomprises of many educational subsystems. The whole system comprises of

many sectors or subsystems, among others: pre-primary education, primary

education, secondary education, vocational education, professional higher

education, academic higher education, post programme education, continuing anddistance education (Figure 5). In order for the full potential of systemic

innovation within education to be exploited, compartmentalised sub-optimisations

of innovations must be identified and overcome. Increasing the general level ofeducation, implies including all sectors in the discussion and levelling innovation

beyond system boundaries and transition points. To benefit fully, new innovative

concepts must be monitored and evaluated, and assessed on their potential forapplication in other sectors as well. One may refer to the introduction of modern

learning arrangements with more learning flexibility to benefit learners not just ine.g., distance education, but also in traditional higher education, polytechnics ande.g. vocational education, allowing learners in multiple systems to raise

proficiency levels, hereby allowing the educational system as a whole, to perform

better. So for innovation to become increasingly systemic, this dimension is

important.

Figure 5. General model of education









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

19

System 3

System 1

System 2

Reporting

Aggregated system

Individual

Performance

Combined Performance

Backward

Forward

Ad 4. Interfacing and complementary systemic alig nment: chaining performance

Education systems can measure their own performance by how well their studentsachieve, on passing through subsequent (other) education systems. Such

achievements function as an indicator of the quality of the system from whichstudents originated. In terms of systemic optimisation of both systems, a numberof matters can be at hand:

1) Systems lack the necessary interfacing mechanics with other systems to

accurately track and monitor performance of students beyond their ownsystem. As a result of missing (forward and backward) interface loops,

systems miss out on reference levels for quality and performance: the

total systemic performance (of both systems), is then lower thanachievable.

2)

Interface mechanics are present, but the follow-up system has

dramatically innovated its workings, whereas the preceding system hasnot been able to catch up with complementary innovation, which

expresses itself in a lower overall performance for the total of bothsystems.

3)

Interface mechanics are present, but now the preceding system has

dramatically innovated its workings, whereas the follow-up system has

not been able to catch up with complementary innovation, which

expresses itself in a lower overall system performance than would beotherwise achievable for both systems.

So for innovation to become increasingly systemic, knowledge about theseconditions is important. It will allow both slow and fast-moving changes to be

picked up and synchronised through chained performance (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Systemic alignment









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

20

Ad 5. Systemic innovation of non-formal and infor mal learning processes

Within the realm of lifelong learning, innovation concepts must be regarded notonly in view of formal learning but also in view of different learning processes

occurring throughout personal and professional life. We have seen the dynamicsin our society making an extension of the concept of learning necessary. In theanalysis of systemic innovation for education, we also have to take on a positive

attitude towards learning occurring in non-formal and informal processes. Our

view on education has changed. Whereas formal education once possessed a

monopoly over knowledge, informal and non-formal sources have becomeincreasingly important knowledge providers. By example, we refer to the

deployment of open educational resources, which may include all forms of

learning: formal, informal and non-formal. Social technologies represent anotherexample. Social technologies have enabled knowledge transfer and learning for

all of social class and those that are not attracted to formal education. Whereas

social technologies have also given rise to new pedagogies in classrooms andliving rooms. Evidently, the recognition of systemic innovation in non-formal and

informal learning processes must be taken up in the discussion.

Ad 6. Legacy, transition and market restructuring

When discussing systemic innovation, we don´t refer to piecemeal improvementor incremental change. We talk about the emergence of a whole new system,

which either resides next (for a while), or replaces any given system in operation.

In the telecom industry, we have seen services being upgraded and especially(new) mobile and information technology services being introduced. It is not that

long ago, that landline communication was used, rather than mobile devices. And

now, see what has happened: mobile services prevail. This is systemicinnovation: addressing a type of innovation around which is centred entirely new

target groups, stakeholders, chains of delivery and deliverers, investors, but alsonew opponents. Systemic innovation is responsible for the emergence of a newsystem of interconnected players, on an entirely new and different level. With

regard to telecom, a whole new industry with new customers and suppliers, is

now dedicated to mobile services alone. In the telecom industry we have seen

strategies of both intensive cooperation between old and new operators, as well astakeovers and mergers between others, in an attempt to stay on top. A

restructuring of the market has resulted. With traditional markets cross financed

for some time, long term sustainability fades away: new networks stand at theroot of legacy systems. For education the same is bound to happen. Rapidly

growing gazelles but also reborns from legacy, shall be in the forefront of

systemic change, leading the restructuring of the educational market.

9. Impact and efficacy of systemic innovations

It remains difficult to build an evidence base for many systemic innovations so as

to irrefutable prove learning yields. Despite this, a lot of innovations have a

tendency to go systemic. To better get grip on the impact of developments, one









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

21

must sketch clarity and disentangle formal, informal and non-formal systems

effected by the developments. Systems must be decomposed to their constituent

parts, to the level that impact of innovation can be measured. For formal systems,this implies zooming into such subsystems as: higher education, vocational

education, and primary education, secondary schooling, et cetera. For informalsystems, this implies zooming into such subsystems as: family, community, clubs,media, et cetera. For non-formal systems, this implies zooming into such

subsystems as: professional trainings, work-related seminars, workshops, interest-

driven courses, et cetera. In these constituent systems, the impact of the (inserted)

innovation can be measured by its ability to improve people’s performance i.e.,to: master knowledge, skills and competences (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Researching educational change

In the impact analysis of systemic innovation, caution is needed though with the

traditional bias on formal education. A balanced view on all systems i.e., formal,

informal and non-formal, is essential. Even if not formally certified, systemic

innovation of informal and non-formal learning is able to dramatically raise

knowledge and proficiency levels of individuals, adjust values, attitudes and beliefs, increase empowerment, boost venturing of new ideas, or motivate

validation of knowledge and experiences for individual professional gains.Although traditionally understood to be the pump for socio-economic growth,

societal progress is not predetermined by formal education alone: the power of










© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

22

Under

inspection

Transparency of Governance and Conduct

Digital Whiteboards and Classroom Devices

School Portals and Learning Environments

Community- and Parental Engagement

Shadow Education Systems

Technology- and Learning Portability

Digital Learning Resources and Learning Clouds

Assistive- and Remedial Technologies

Pre-Teaching and Remedial Teaching

Socio-Collaborative and Cooperative Learning

Internet Security, Privacy and Safety

Web 2.0, Wiki and Social Technologies

Open Access, Resources and Standards

Institutional Reform and Modernisation

University-Business Cooperation

Cross-Curricular and Transversal Approaches

Quality and Accreditation Systems

Competence and Qualification Frameworks

systemic innovation in other f ields besides formal education, must not be

underestimated as contributing factor to societal innovation.

Innovative developments, which are undirected and uncontrolled, make future

predicaments however rather difficult. The impact and actual efficacy of suchinnovations is continuously evolving beyond our control, themselves dependingon several complementary processes, as well inducing new ones. The question of

course is whether such processes in education should not better be increasingly

governed with a birds-eye perspective instead of endowing disperse and

fragmented, local-in-nature, projects. To really control systemic change, even better manage innovation pro-actively, attracting, attaining and directing the

commitment of complementary parties is essential. The shaping of new coalitions

and governance models for educational innovation hereby is key. Systemicinnovations needs to be planned to gain control. Figure 8 lists a number of

perhaps interrelated developments, which are currently under debate of having

systemic implications, and of which is said that we ought to be on top of control:

Figure 8. Potential drivers of systemic change

The actual impact and efficacy of systemic innovation strongly depends on the

implementation of complementary change in traditional institutional working andteaching practice. Complementary change is addressed not only in case of formaleducation, but in informal and non-formal situations as well, whereas for examplenew home-based parent-child pedagogy is needed with regard to developments in

Internet learning and Internet safety, and whereas new ethics and guidelines are

needed to manage for example social technologies in work-based situations.

Impact and efficacy of systemic innovations can also be undesirable. One such









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

23

example is research-in-progress on transactive memory and the decaying

performance of knowledge storage in individuals, caused by the increased

external sourcing of knowledge through such innovation as the Internet (Sparrowat al., 2011; Wegner et al., 1985). For systemic innovations to really have any

long-term impact and efficacy, their survival will depend on the existence of awell-thought out concept of ecosystem, able to sustainably run and back theinnovation over longer periods of time. In this respect, a clear danger exists for

innovations that lack any kind of demand-orientation, being merely supply and

funds-driven.

10. Systems escaping stationary

What can be said about the transition of education systems, about systems

breaking-out and achieving a higher dynamic equilibrium? The performance of

education systems is delimited by their operational specs or boundaries ofoperation, which under normal circumstances cannot be surpassed. Under the

inert constraints of legislation, geography, infrastructure, demographics, social,cultural, and others constraints, education systems will reside within a certainoperating bandwidth and will maintain a certain performance status-quo: they are

stuck within paradigm. Making changes to the mix of labour, capital and

knowledge resources does enable the education system to make gradual

performance improvements, though will still be stuck with its operations within boundary and within paradigm. Despite the good will of climbing the

performance ladder, systems approximate a ceiling, which prevents them from

significantly improving performance any further. Each time, more effort andenergy is needed to gain even smaller improvements. So how then to break the

barrier, and how to obtain a systemic change? Radically changing system

performance, requires an active control over the dynamic configuration ofmultiple simultaneous and complementary innovations. It requires the pro-active

management of a change network, that directs drivers of complementaryinnovations systematically to envisioned goals. It assumes empowering allassociated stakeholders like educational, parental, business and financial

communities, by giving them active ownership of the change process. Creating

successful dynamic change however, is of high risk and will be a heavy load for

legacy education systems, as of the ruling power of traditional forces. It isapparent that change like this can only be forged with the fluidity of all parties

involved. A holistic, interactive and reinforcing process is needed. It implies

moulding coalitions of change and anticipating on strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threat of individual parties and the coalition at large. A situated

and proper balance must be found for implementing systemic change, allowing a

safe shift to higher levels. We distinguish three states for systems (Figure 9):

1) a zero state,2) an upward state,3)

a downward state.

In each state, operations remain within boundary specs, unless (again) a paradigm

or systemic change is immanent. Upward systemic change radically changes the









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

24

OperationsInput

Resources

Constraints

Output

OperationsInput

Resources

Constraints

Output

OperationsInput

Resources

Constraints

Output

Time (t)

1

2

3

P e r f o r m a n c e ( p )

Systemic

innovation

Systemic

downfall

performance of a system when it migrates from the zero state towards the upward

state. Whenever a system is negatively affected by change though, and important

complementary system variables resonate to amplify this effect, systemicdownfall occurs, leaving the system to spin down and bringing it into a state of

decay. To pro-actively control paradigm shift in a positive sense, evidently, onewishes as little as possible of any uncontrollable processes and variables toremain, or when they do remain, to have some knowledge on how their effects on

the change project, may be dimmed. It is expected that new network management

research will fill this knowledge gap.

Figure 9. Systems shifting paradigm

11. Outreach of systemic innovation

A final word on the geographical outreach of the innovations. What can be saidabout the scope of the systemic impact of the innovations? To answer this

question, a classification mechanism is devised, with which systemic innovations

can be assigned to one of four categories (Figure 10):

1) Systemic Innovation of Type 12) Systemic Innovation of Type 23)

Systemic Innovation of Type 3

4) Systemic Innovation of Type 4









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

25

In each of the categories, the concept of ecosystem, as described before as being

important for the long term sustainability of the innovation, plays a crucial role.

Systemic Innovation of Type 1, refers to the sustaining of educational innovationsthrough ecosystems on a local level. Such educational innovations typically are

closely connected to the local economic interests. Systemic Innovation of Type 2refers to the state of innovation, which is realised by ecosystems sustaining neweducational processes, on the national level. Incompatible territory between

operators, as far as agreed processes are concerned, is eradicated. Systemic

innovations that have reached world-region level, are typically sustained by

ecosystems beyond national territory. These innovations are referred to asSystemic Innovations of Type 3, and impact an entire part of the world: Europe,

Asia, Africa, North America, South America, or Australia. Systemic Innovation

of Type 4, implies the realisation of an ecosystem for sustaining compatibleeducational processes, globally. We may refer to such system as incorporating

planet-wide value creating educational processes. Of course, the interconnection

of education systems on that level is a tremendous challenge. Especially,connecting world regions which are characterised by non-systemic territory to

new processes, is a challenge. Europe bares experience predominantly internal, inconnecting national education systems, with making credit-, degree-,qualification-, quality-, and financing systems more transparent, comparable and

compatible. As far as developments in Europe are concerned, the region is slowly

evolving into a Systemic Innovation of Type 3, whereas more global expansion of

such schemes like Erasmus and Bologna, could even herald a SystemicInnovation of Type 4. However, to make innovations systemic on a global scale,

requires considerable entrepreneurship and innovation on the part of all involved

policy systems, and requires implementation of a sound concept of (global)ecosystem to assure continuation and sustainability of the innovation in the long

run.

Local

Type 1

National

Type 2

Region

Type 3

Global

Type 4

Ecosystem

Figure 10. Classification of outreach

12. Conclusion

What is the role of systemic innovation in education: is it disruptive, should we

ignore it, does it require pro-active engagement? This paper has described the

advancement of society throughout the centuries. It distinguished three main









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

26

stages societies can be in i.e., the agricultural, the industrial and the innovation

society. Europe clearly made the move to the innovation society, a society which

relies on creativity, innovation, and personal and professional development. Suchsociety prioritises learning in all facets and strongly reinvigorates

entrepreneurship, for which the personal necessity paradoxically diminished, as aresult of social security. Societal stages are connected to learning paradigms.Over the different societal époques, learning seems to shift onward from a

situation in which learning is personally accrued by experience on reward of

natural production yields, to institutionalised and batch-driven processes for mass

education, towards a situation in which individual differences are an opportunityto be potentialised through empowerment and ownership. Currently the European

society has made the shift towards more transient and diversified forms of

engagement in activities, be they personal or professional. However, theeducation system is still legacy, it is not responsive to change and is lagging

behind the developments. Traditional education is having difficulties formulating

an appropriate response to the developments, whereas young operators andnewcomers to the educational market, are experimenting with technology and

responsive learning arrangements. With knowledge increasingly being sourcedand validated throughout different parts of society, formally, informally and non-formally, it seems that the hegemony of traditional institutions is slowly

decaying. Vastly facilitated by the many new tools of our media-centred society,

learning is essentially spreading outside formal institutions towards different

corners of society. Universities themselves, are increasingly developing newknowledge in conjunction with business partners, other academic networks and

user communities. So, whereas formal education once was the prime source for

knowledge, the epistemology has changed. Change has undermined the oldeducation system. Education is likely to befall an inconvenient restructuring. No-

one really knows what the exact outcome and economic effects will be. What can

be said is that pro-active management can help drive an effective response. Foreducation it implies interfacing with society and stakeholders in new ways and on

various levels, and simultaneously and rigorously developing integrated andcomplementary education strategies to adapt to new situations. To ensure theviability of the own position, educational providers increasingly have to

coordinate new innovation processes with complementary innovators, and in

many cases even with direct competitors, rather than pushing forward solely as is

frequently the case in autonomous innovation models. As systemic innovation hasa dependency on complementary partners to move forward and spans beyond the

boundaries of the own organisation, a proactive attitude towards network building

and management becomes essential: different partners and phased planninghorizons must be managed. Indeed, the fabric of society is changing, and with it

education must change. However, the sheer complexity of change, does not allow

traditional institutions to tackle this alone. More so, systemic innovation of

education must be done with open eyes to all interests, for change to be forgedand results to cater proficiency and prosperity. Priorities for systemic innovationmust be addressed in accordance with society, i.e., the anticipated strengths andweaknesses of civil society, government, education and business. But i t must be

done!









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

27

References

Abernathy, W., and Clark, K. B. (1985). Mapping the winds of creativedestruction. Research Policy, 14, 3 – 22.

Ambramowitz, M. and David, P. (1996). Technological Change and the Rise ofIntangible Investments: The US Economy’s Growth Path in the Twentieth

Century. In: the US economy's growth path in the 20th century, OECD

Publishers, Paris, France.

Arthur, W.B. (1996). Increasing Returns and the New World of Business.

Harvard Business Review (July-August), pp. 100 – 109.

Beaudreau, B.C. (1996). Mass Production, the Stock Market Crash and the Great

Depression. New York, Lincoln, Shanghi: Authors Choice Press.

Bosma, N.S., Acs, Z.J., Autio, E., Coduras, A. and J. Levie (2009). Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008. Executive Report.

Bröcker, J., Dohse, D., and Soltwedel, R. (2003). Innovation clusters and

interregional competition. Springer-Verlag, Germany.

Carnoy, M. (2001). Work, Society, Family and Learning for the Future. In:Schooling for Tomorrow: What schools for the Future? OECD, 2001.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Making sense of Corporate Venture Capital. Harvard Business Review, March 2002, pp. 4-11.

Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (2002). Organizing for innovation: When isvirtual virtuous? Harvard Business Review, 80, pp. 127-135.

Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (1996). When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizingfor Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 74/1, pp. 65-73.

Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to Restructuring: Policies, Practices and the

Emerging Visions of Schooling . Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management, University of Oregon, 1993. 432 pages. ED 359 593.

De Laat, P.B. (1999) Systemic innovation and the virtues of going virtual: Thecase of the digital video disc. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 11,

pp. 159-180.

Dittrich, K., Duysters, G. and De Man, A.P. (2004). Using networks for changinginnovation strategy: the case of IBM . ERIM Reports Series Research inManagement, ERS-2004-111-ORG, October 2004.

Drucker, P. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our changing

Society. New York: Harper and Row.








© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

28

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Oxfor d: Butterworth Heinemann.

Franke, N. and von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs viainnovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32/7,

pp. 1199-1215.

Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: the influence of network

resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management

Journal , 20/5, pp. 397-420.

Hargadon, A.B. and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions:

Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly,

46/3, pp. 476-501.

Harman, W. W. (1984). How I learned to love the future. World Future Society

Bulletin, 18, pp. 1-5.

Harty, C. (2005) Innovation in construction: A sociology of technology approach. Building Research & Information, 33, pp. 512-522.

Hertel, G., Niedner, S., and Hermann, S. (2003). Motivation of software

developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to

the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32/7, pp. 1159-1177.

Hipple, von E., and von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the private

collective innovation model: Issues for organization science. OrganizationScience, 14/2, pp. 209-223.

Hounshell, D.A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States,

Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jenlink, P. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Carr, A. A. & Nelson, L.M. (1998). Guidelines

for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and

Behavioral Science, 15(3), 217-233.

Kuhnen, F. (1995). Aspects of Agrarian Structures, Unpublished Manuscript.

Kuhnen, F. (1991). What is Agriculture? Need for a New Paradigm? in:Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 30, H. 2, 1991, S. 191-1991.

Kuhnen, F. (1982). Man and Land: an introduction into the Problems of Agrarian

structure and agrarian reform. Deutsche Welthungerhilfe. Saarbrücken.

La Piana Associates. (2006). Leadership and management: having a change- friendly Mindset . http://www.lapiana.org.

Lewis, A. (1989). Restructuring America’s Schools. Arlington, Virginia:

American Association of School Administrators, 1989. 250 pages. ED 314 820.










© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

29

Lundvall, B.-A. and Johnson, B. (1994). The Lear ning Economy. Journal of

Industry Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2.

Machlup, F. (1962). The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United

States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T. and Salmenkaita, J-P. (2005). Open innovation in

systemic innovation contexts. Chapter 12. To appear in: Open Innovation:

Researching a New Paradigm. October 26, 2005

Maula, M. (2007). Venture Capital and Open Innovation in Industries

characterized by Systemic Innovation. Institute of Strategy and International

Business of the Helsinki University of Technology at the Wireless WorldResearch Forum, Otaniemi, Espoo, June 14, 2007.

McNay, K. (2003). Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality Women'schanging roles in the context of the demographic transition. Background paper

prepared and commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4, TheLeap to Equality.

Miller, R. (2001). 21st Century Transitions: Opportunities, Risks and Strategies

for Governments and Schools. In: Schooling for Tomorrow: What schools for the

Future? OECD, 2001.

Nooteboom, B. (2000). Institutions and forms of coordination in innovation

systems. Organization Studies, 21, 5, pp. 915-939.

OECD (2009). Systemic Innovation, the Response of Vocational Education and

Training to the Crisis. In: IMHE-INFO: Programme on Institutional Managementin Higher Education, OECD, Paris, France, July 2009.

OECD (2008). The Future of the Family to 2030 – A Scoping Report. OECDInternational Futures Programme Paris, 19th December 2008.

OECD (2005). Enhancing the Performance of the Services Sector , Paris.

OECD (2001). The Wider Environment of Schooling: Deep Trends and driving

Forces, Chapter 1, Report by the OECD Secretariat. In: Schooling for Tomorrow:

What schools for the Future? OECD, 2001.

OECD (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning Society, Paris.

OECD (1999). Preparing Youth for the 21

st

Century – The Transition from Education to the Labour Market , Paris.

Parker, J. (1995). Politics, Culture, and Education Goals 2000: The Politics of

Systemic Education Reform in the American States. University of North Carolina,

Prepared for the delivery at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Political

Science Association Chicago, August 31- September 3, 1995.









© ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

30

Parra, M.A. (2002). A case st udy of leadership in s ystemic education reform: the

El Paso collaborative for academic excellence. Dissertation presented to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at El Paso, May 2002.

Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizationalcollaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41/1, pp. 116-145.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models. A new

paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robertson, P.L. and Langlois, R.N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical

integration. Research Policy, 24, 4, pp. 543-562.

Rooney, D., Hearn, G., & Ninan, A. (2005). Handbook on the Knowledge

Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Sadowski, B.M., Dittrich, K. and Duysters, G.M. (2003). Collaborative Strategiesin the Event of technological Discontinuities: The case of Nokia in the MobileTelecommunication Industry, Small Business Economics, 21, 2, pp. 173-182.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., Wegner, D.M (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive

Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science Express.Published Online 14 July 2011. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1207745, at:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/science.1207745.full.pdf

Spence, A.M (1973). Job Market Signalling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87,

pp. 355-374.

Squire, K. D. and Reigeluth, C. M. (2000). The many faces of systemic change.

Educational Horizons, 78(3), pp. 145-154.

Teece, D.J. (1996). Firm Organization, Industrial Structure, and TechnologicalInnovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 3/2, pp. 193-224.

Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovations: Implications forIntegration, Collaboration, Licencing and Public Policy. Research Policy, 15, pp.

286-305.

Thompson, J. (1994). Systemic Education Reform. ERIC Digest , Number 90.

Utterback, J.M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companiescan seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.









© ESSIE 2011 ISSN: 2211 0321

Vaclav, S. (2005). Creating t he Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of

1867-1914 and their Lasting Impact . Oxford; New York: Oxford University

Press.

West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32/7, pp. 1259-1285.

Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., and Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in

close relationships. In: W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible

relationships (pp. 253 – 276). New York: Springer-Verlag.




Documents

Systemic Innovation of Education