Systemic Innovation of Education

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

Cornelis Adrianus (Kees-Jan) van Dorp
European 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 Education
The 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 independent
ways. 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. To
counter the problems of our modern time, there is an urgent need to frame the
developments more coherently and provide a systemic response, a response
which incorporates the best of learning. Systemic innovation intends to revisit and
restructure 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 be
forged 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 the
developments in education and overcoming an innovation gap, proactive
measures must be taken: support must be gained to dynamically configure
networks for systemic innovation throughout different sectors of education. In
this 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. poques and learning paradigms

Societies have been characterised by the different ways in which they deal with
the production and distribution of their goods and services (Bosma et al., 2009).
Characteristics of three societies, we shall outline below i.e., archetypes in the
view 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.

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 society
in 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 for
food, 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 society
mostly 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 ones own existence. The agricultural economy
was 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 further
independence of outsiders. Cultivation encouraged the settlement of stable farm
communities, some of which grew out to be towns. In later stages, production for
ones own living could be supplemented with craftwork and trade. Trade in the
agricultural economy facilitated the diffusion of many crops and farming
techniques. The dissemination and adoption of new farming techniques
contributed to farming management and production of larger yields. Having a
farm 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, imitation
and 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 and
labour to generate products. Authors such as Beaudreau (1996) and Hounshell
(1984) have published on the industrial poque. Industrialisation refers to a range
of human activities from handicraft to industrial production. Generally,
industrialisation is directed towards mass production of products for sale to
consumers. 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 and
capital 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 fixed
amount 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 same
amount 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 and
innovative 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 growth
economy. 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 a
most 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 systems potential to generate,
manage and distribute knowledge among its population. Dissemination and
access to knowledge, through social and professional interplay, in conjunction
with 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, and
knowledge 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 learner
has 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. Shifting
educational paradigm in this direction in current circumstances, can only be
realised 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 dont hold up the smart learners,
whereas fast movers dont 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 a
variety 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 21
st
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 in
fertility 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 work
careers 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 changed
the 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 of
time 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 formed
through 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 peoples identity. There have been enormous changes in average lifestyles
and what children nowadays expect to be their living standard in the future. The
concern can be that high levels of consumption and strengthened materialism is
regarded as a defining value in itself. Many young people enjoy more access to
consumption 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 towards
individualised 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-based
community 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 have
other 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 jobs
has 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 pressure
on 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 social
services (OECD, 2001). Another problem is that of the fair distribution of
available resources with an ever increasing rise of the planets population,
whereas on the local level, regions have to cope with problems of community
crimp: consequently leading to the pulling back and fusion of local social and
government functions into more centralised structures, which no longer reside in
the direct local community, rather making the community less attractive as a
choice 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 such
as 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 impact
is 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 as
significant 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 political
systems 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. Societies
have 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 to
change, 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 country
resources and social opportunities. Our modern society has become more media
centred, and the creation and dissemination of knowledge have become more
diverse and complex. Currently, knowledge is sourced, combined and
disseminated 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 redefine
its 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 of
a 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 complementary
learning strategies to adapt to new challenges. It includes learning strategies
opening up to the infusion of new technologies and media. People must be
learned how to source, combine and judge knowledge, and exercise choice in
order 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

Societys traditional property of homogeneity has been replaced by increased
heterogeneity. Our contemporary society has moved away from what can be
typified 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 vastly
decompartmentlises, 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 to
deal 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 system
are typically introduced into craft. However, on transition from the industrial
towards 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 and
networking, and knowledge about exploitation and valorisation, have become
essential (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; OECD, 2000). To maintain a competitive
edge, 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 and
displacement 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 must
innovate 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 that
stack learning retardations upon another. Slow progression in one field must be
decoupled from possible progression in other disjunctive fields. Only active
engagement, grounded in learning sciences, pedagogical-, organisational- and
ICT-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 towards
learning 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 do
not 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 require
simultaneous 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 related
complementary 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 from
literature. In reference to systemic innovation, several authors acknowledge the
notion of significant adjustments in other parts of the system, they are embedded
in (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 often
span 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 that
systemic 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 the
coordination 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 systemic
innovation typically entails the coordination of different parts of a value network.
Brcker et al. (2003) denote systemic innovation by the presence of interactive
linkages between generators, diffusers, exploiters, and commercialisers of new
knowledge.

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 focal
control 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 information
about the development of different elements of systemic innovation (Gulati,
1999; Powell et al., 1996). Harty (2005) describes the possession of control over
systemic innovation from two perspectives: (1) vertically integrated networks
and, (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 of
systemic 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 tight
integration (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; Sadowski
et 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 an
integrated 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 the
risk 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 to
ensure the viability of the innovation, rather than coordinating solely with the
suppliers and customers, as is frequently the case in closed innovation models. It
is an active shaping process: providing (financial) incentives to suppliers and
customers 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 ones 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). Creating
traditional 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 the
value 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 and
governance. 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 ones 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 to
steer 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 systems architecture. One cannot underestimate the time frame and the
diversions possible in the planning of systemic innovations. For example, an
innovation 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 process
is 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, many
education 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 poque. The
recognition 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 systemic
change, raising student achievement is regarded a central goal. In systemic
change, high academic achievements are expected of all students, and toward the
end, improvement of teaching and learning must be at the heart of a change
agenda (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 quality
education, 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 response
should 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 achieve
these outcomes. Modern governance models must be complemented to manage
this effectively on the local level. Patch work of policies must be avoided. The
design of learning programmes should be such that separate components make a
logical 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 greater
emphasis 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 central
variables, labelled as such because they have a powerful direct effect on student
learning. 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 a
system is changed, no matter where in that system the element resides, it is still
piecemeal change. According to Reigeluth (1999), the key indicator of systemic
change is paradigm change, which she refers to as a significant change in one part
of 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 of
change but not much real improvement in outcomes (Harman, 1984). If change
does not cause other elements in the systems structure to change, the effect on
the greater system would not be referred to as systemic, but piecemeal. Jenlink et
al. (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 and
interdependencies 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 users
conception of systemic change depends on their experience and the type of
system 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 and
Reigeluth, 2000). The OECD (2009) refers to systemic change: any kind of
dynamic, system-wide change that is intended to add value to educational
processes and outcomes.

According to the above OECD reference, systemic innovation aims to improve
the 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 the
comparative 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 a
larger intelligence and self-examination (Senge, 1990). Although societal needs
have significantly changed over the last decades, a lot of education policies and
systems have remained unchanged and have not benefitted from applying any
new methods and techniques, but have remained stranded in policies and teaching
techniques of the industrial poque.

8. Discourse and synopsis for education

With the intake of literature on systemic innovation, we should be able to draw up
a 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 systemic
innovation. 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 manifestation
of 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 the
value 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 sector
associations: 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 of
complementary 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 is
important, 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, and
no framework was found with which to initiate a much broader discourse. So for
systemic innovation of education to be discussed properly, one needs to
encompass 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 coordination
4) Increasing open manifestations of innovation and collaboration
5) Introduction of alternative risk, resource and business and governance
models
6) 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 in
the 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 the
system, the adopted views on management and work practices, and the ingrained
division 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 compartmentalised
innovations
4) Interfacing and complementary systemic alignment: chaining
performance
5) 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 the
discussion 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. Abstract
system 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 it
from e.g. perspective of pedagogical systems, and a discourse on open
educational 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).

Network
system (5)
Institutional
system (4)
Delivery
system (3)
Curriculum
system (1)
Production
system (2)

Figure 3. Five systems with paradigmatic views

1) Breakthrough discoveries in scientific disciplines and related course domains
always 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. Add
up to that, the development of exchanging digital learning resources between
university 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 the
traditional hours of face to face cohort teaching. These developments are typically
supported by the technological possibilities of blended learning and distance
learning. In cooperation with complementary innovators, delivery models seem to
move 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 down
change considerably.

5) Finally, the ruling network paradigm is also important. Networking is a
contributing 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 autonomous
innovation. 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 and
neurosciences, generating new knowledge on the relation between such variables
as technology, cognitive processing and learning; i.e., by taking on board the role
of brain development, age and sexes. Overruling this fundamental principle, in
the 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, innovations
from 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 solutions
may vary. Learner and learning properties direct at best how solutions should take
shape. The interplay of knowledge from ICT innovations on the one hand and
neurosciences and learning sciences on the other hand, make way for grounded
learning solutions. System breakthroughs i.e., what works and what doesnt, 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, as
exemplified by such methods as: cohort teaching (CT), socio-collaborative
learning (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 is
resolving.

With much variables of learners in education at a float, the option of variability
and 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 complex
interrelationship of all of the aforementioned factors. For success on
implementation of systemic innovations, teachers must innovate as well, whereas
not sticking to tradition but actually applying the new pedagogical principles
when 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
Objectives
and
Outcomes
Learner and
Learning
Properties
Neuro and
Learning
Sciences
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
Professional
higher education
Professional training
Vocational
specialisations
Part-time education
Part-time education
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
ePost
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
eN
o
n

f
o
r
m
a
l

s
p
h
e
r
e
Ad 3. Multi-sector observatory: tracking and recording 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 the
education sector is not homogenous, but a rather heterogeneous whole, which
comprises 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 and
distance 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 of
education, 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 for
application in other sectors as well. One may refer to the introduction of modern
learning arrangements with more learning flexibility to benefit learners not just in
e.g., distance education, but also in traditional higher education, polytechnics and
e.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 alignment: chaining performance

Education systems can measure their own performance by how well their students
achieve, on passing through subsequent (other) education systems. Such
achievements function as an indicator of the quality of the system from which
students originated. In terms of systemic optimisation of both systems, a number
of 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 own
system. 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 than
achievable.
2) Interface mechanics are present, but the follow-up system has
dramatically innovated its workings, whereas the preceding system has
not been able to catch up with complementary innovation, which
expresses itself in a lower overall performance for the total of both
systems.
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 be
otherwise achievable for both systems.

So for innovation to become increasingly systemic, knowledge about these
conditions 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 informal learning processes

Within the realm of lifelong learning, innovation concepts must be regarded not
only in view of formal learning but also in view of different learning processes
occurring throughout personal and professional life. We have seen the dynamics
in our society making an extension of the concept of learning necessary. In the
analysis 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 become
increasingly 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 another
example. 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 and
living 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 dont refer to piecemeal improvement
or 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 systemic
innovation: addressing a type of innovation around which is centred entirely new
target groups, stakeholders, chains of delivery and deliverers, investors, but also
new opponents. Systemic innovation is responsible for the emergence of a new
system 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 as
takeovers 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 the
root 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 informal
systems, 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 peoples 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 fields 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 such
innovations is continuously evolving beyond our control, themselves depending
on 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. Systemic
innovations 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 and
teaching practice. Complementary change is addressed not only in case of formal
education, but in informal and non-formal situations as well, whereas for example
new 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 (Sparrow
at 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 a
well-thought out concept of ecosystem, able to sustainably run and back the
innovation 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 of
operation, 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 certain
operating 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 and
energy 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 of
multiple simultaneous and complementary innovations. It requires the pro-active
management of a change network, that directs drivers of complementary
innovations systematically to envisioned goals. It assumes empowering all
associated 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 is
apparent 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

Operations
Input
Resources
Constraints
Output
Operations
Input
Resources
Constraints
Output
Operations
Input
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, systemic
downfall 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, one
wishes as little as possible of any uncontrollable processes and variables to
remain, 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 said
about 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 1


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 innovations
through ecosystems on a local level. Such educational innovations typically are
closely connected to the local economic interests. Systemic Innovation of Type 2
refers to the state of innovation, which is realised by ecosystems sustaining new
educational 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 as
Systemic 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 compatible
educational 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, in
connecting 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 Systemic
Innovation 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. Such
society prioritises learning in all facets and strongly reinvigorates
entrepreneurship, for which the personal necessity paradoxically diminished, as a
result of social security. Societal stages are connected to learning paradigms.
Over the different societal poques, 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 opportunity
to 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, the
education 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 and
newcomers to the educational market, are experimenting with technology and
responsive learning arrangements. With knowledge increasingly being sourced
and 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 new
knowledge 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 old
education 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. For
education it implies interfacing with society and stakeholders in new ways and on
various levels, and simultaneously and rigorously developing integrated and
complementary education strategies to adapt to new situations. To ensure the
viability 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 has
a 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 planning
horizons 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 forged
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. But it must be
done!


ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

27

References

Abernathy, W., and Clark, K. B. (1985). Mapping the winds of creative
destruction. Research Policy, 14, 322.

Ambramowitz, M. and David, P. (1996). Technological Change and the Rise of
Intangible Investments: The US Economys 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. 100109.

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.

Brcker, 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 is
virtual virtuous? Harvard Business Review, 80, pp. 127-135.

Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (1996). When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing
for 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 on
Educational Management, University of Oregon, 1993. 432 pages. ED 359 593.

De Laat, P.B. (1999) Systemic innovation and the virtues of going virtual: The
case 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 changing
innovation strategy: the case of IBM. ERIM Reports Series Research in
Management, 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. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Franke, N. and von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via
innovation 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. Organization
Science, 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. Saarbrcken.

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

Lewis, A. (1989). Restructuring Americas 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 Learning 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 World
Research Forum, Otaniemi, Espoo, June 14, 2007.

McNay, K. (2003). Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality Women's
changing roles in the context of the demographic transition. Background paper
prepared and commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4, The
Leap 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 Management
in Higher Education, OECD, Paris, France, July 2009.

OECD (2008). The Future of the Family to 2030 A Scoping Report. OECD
International 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 study of leadership in systemic 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). Interorganizational
collaboration 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 Strategies
in the Event of technological Discontinuities: The case of Nokia in the Mobile
Telecommunication 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 Technological
Innovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 3/2, pp. 193-224.

Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovations: Implications for
Integration, 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 companies
can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.


ESSIE 2011, ISSN: 2211-0321

31

Vaclav, S. (2005). Creating the 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. 253276). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Systemic Innovation of Education

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Systemic Innovation of Education

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SYSTEMIC INNOVATION OF EDUCATION:

FORGING ACTION, GAINING MOMENTUM, SHIFTING PARADIGM

Potrebbero piacerti anche