Twists and turns.

It's really great to be in contact with the original writer(s) of the journal articles we are reading for our thesis. To tap their minds and get their thoughts on questions that we encounter along the way. Talk about the power of social capital!

Pirjo Ståhle has been a great source of help and inspiration. Her emails to us have helped clarify certain questions we had regarding methodology details, as well as give us some food for thought in the areas that deviate from her article, and the implications. A key factor is in the data - we are using IC ranked data rather than absolute values, and that results in an analysis that provides information to competitiveness and not just performance. Something that Alliz and I are in the midst of fully comprehending, but it's safe to say that we are almost there in getting an answer for ourselves.

Well, we've submitted the thesis draft on Tue for the mid-term seminars next week, and after that draft was submitted, our methodology changed slightly to reflect the above (though the main idea and framework still remains). That's the thesis journey I supposed - always dynamic, never static or linear or predictable.

Much like IC, don't you think?

And the map of our minds continues to expand.

With each passing day, new ideas, methodologies, present themselves. However, it is important to keep the focus on the purpose of this thesis paper - not to provide answers to all questions / challenges, but to perhaps point us in the right direction for progress.

After another thought-provoking and enlightening talk with Leif over Skype on Friday, Alliz and I worked on his recommendations, to interesting results.

Firstly, we discovered Prof Pirjo Ståhle and the work done on dynamic national IC, in particular relating the effects of IC indicators on national wealth. At the end of the day, innovation doesn't make a difference if it doesn't translate into some concrete value, and for countries, this means GDP. As such, Alliz and I are supplementing our analysis with the link between our IC elements of HC, MC, PC and RC to FC using Ståhle and Bounfour's methodology, and in so doing, seeing how they relate to Kao's innovation systems. We're in the midst of seeking clarity relating to the details of the methodology, but so far, results have been interesting.

A key point raised by Ståhle and Bounfour is that IC elements must be examined in context of the countries' economic environments, with different IC elements playing a more important role for developing vs developed countries. This would have implications on the choice of innovation model - that perhaps, certain innovation models may be more suited for certain types of countries, and as these countries develop economically, their adoption of innovation model would change as well. Time to think about systems dynamics - the IC elements are interrelated in a non-linear way. When one IC element grows, how are the rest affected?

Secondly, we've been very intrigued as well by Finland's Committee for the Future (CFF), which, as a committee that is part of Finland's Parliament, is a clear mandate by the nation's leaders on the need to keep Finland's future forever in mind, ie the innovation and renewal dimensions of IC. There has been a number of recommendations put forth by the CFF, but the question for us is, how have these recommendations translated into concrete implementation?

At the moment, there are more questions than answers, but isn't this part of the journey? Perhaps the aim at the end isn't to have the solutions to everything wrapped in a neat little package, but instead to open the box and to ask the right questions, and ask for the world's help in filling the box with the answers.

Non-linear thinking.

I'm personally starting to understand the journey of writing a thesis. No matter how structured an outline, ideas and thoughts never fall within a fixed framework. And that's a good thing, if not, no good and original ideas would ever be birthed.

The process isn't about pure execution, but has a lot to do with spending the time to simply - think. Not writing, think. It's a bit strange to our Asian blood to not actively 'work', but it's in the mind that value begins to be created, and no good thoughts ever emerge without some time spent in contemplation. I fight all the time with the feeling I'm wasting time by not doing SOMETHING, but when a mini-Eureka ends the 'silence', it's all worth it.

And so, after a day of thinking, an hour of jotting down my thoughts, I've put my fingers to the keyboard and produced one more ray of light to our journey down the IC tunnel.

And now, once again, the circle begins.

Pilot research: Helsinki!

Sarah and I have been reading books and articles on IC, KBE, Innovation,... making notes on key concepts, and study the relationships between these key terms.

It's time to put our knowledge (and data from Carol) into use ~ PILOT research on Helsinki.

Our task for coming week:
Analyse the innovation system and IC elements of Helsinki, Finland

Sub-tasks:
1. Research on the economic and social background of Finland (and Helsinki in particular), to understand how Helsinki evolves (time base analysis) to an innovation system it has now.

2. Study how (contributing factors) the sub-IC elements of Finland evolve over time.

3. Study the linkage between the IC elements (HC, MC, PC, RC) and the innovation system Helsinki has.

Hopefully by completing this PILOT research, Sarah and I could develop a good framework / model for our further research on Singapore and Malaysia!

Stay tune!