Skip to main content

Lock-in Mobility and The Non-linear Model of Innovation in Singapore University Education

The new non-linear model will affect the mobility of  students due to the lock-in effect. This will make education planners think within the box rather than outside the box as they think the ‘jump-start’ approach has helped Singapore obtaining world standard in education and innovation.
In some ways, the new Singapore university education is adopting the ‘jump-start’ approach. The old and established universities are in the linear model of innovation.  But the newly set-up universities and institutions are very different.  There are all partner-institutions with foreign big names:

1.   Singapore University of Technology and Design is a project in collaboration with MIT. (http://www.sutd.edu.sg/)
2.   Lee Kong Chiang School of Medicine is a joint medical school between Imperial College London and NTU, Singapore. (http://www.lkcmedicine.ntu.edu.sg/Pages/index.aspx)
3.   Yale-NUS College (http://www.yale-nus.edu.sg/)

Based on the success and feedback of Singapore Management University and Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, the current ‘jump-start’ non-linear approach is an expansion of the model.  Will it create more lock-in effects that prevent out of box thinking and solution?        

Linear model of innovation

It is a straight line from basic research, applied research, development, and testing (technology) to commercialisation (application).
 source: cstpr.colorado.edu

Trajectories and lock-in effect
Technological development and advancement produce system, products and services easy to use.  This makes people revolve around a certain standard or habit (e.g. window operating system or touch screen technology). The lock-in effect will take place when people refuse to think of other solutions outside the standard.     

For example, the MRT system, transport planners think the train service is the best solution and refuse to allow parallel bus routes. This will affect the mobility of the commuters who have no alternative.

By adopting non-linear approach, these new institutions can ‘jump-start’ their innovation. They can avoid the routine path of Linear Model of Innovation and carry out applied research, development, testing and commercialisation at the same time and still retain the basic research.

This approach will give Singapore the latest technology and innovation in the world. Other advantages include shorter learning curve, quick obtainment of knowledge and more exchanges.  It can also move Singapore university education to world standard at the shortest possible time.

Why commercial partnership fails
This is different from commercial partnership between local companies and foreign universities that is mainly for profit purpose.   Except business education, like INSEAD, Chicago Business School, ESSEC, etc. other non-business education ventures are not doing well or had closed down, for example the failed UNSW Singapore, the troubled TischAsia (http://www.tischasia.nyu.edu.sg/page/home.html).    

There are critical success factors for this non-linear approach. Financially, the host country must be willing to invest. This is not suitable for developing or poor countries. Also, you must prepare to let foreign partners to lead the institutions.  As for students, they will have to pay higher tuition fees (comparing to older Singapore universities). Less qualify local students have to be replaced by talented foreign students with free scholarship.

Singapore seems to meet almost all the framework requirements for such a non-linear model. Be it education, competition, governance, finance, intellectual property rights, standards and public procurements.  Few countries in the world can meet all these conditions.

There are minimum operational problems as the design planning, concept and management of the whole setup are done by foreign experts with additional local inputs.  It looks like a perfect ‘jump-start’ innovation, just like the economic policies of Singapore.  The government will do whatever it can to meet the requirements of big foreign investors. It will create and import required software and hardware for heavy weight foreign investments.  

However, there are trade-offs politically and socially. Local students and their parents complain that they do not have opportunities to study locally and have to pay more to study overseas.  It is also difficult to (measure and) fairly distribute the wealth created by this innovation if there is any.

Perhaps, the most difficult issue is how to break the ‘lock-in’ mobility. Singapore, unlike Hong Kong, refuses to upgrade its polytechnics to full university. Polytechnics are another class of higher learning in Singapore. Singapore Institute of Technology is purposely setting up, partnering foreign universities, to offer degree courses to polytechnic graduates.

It will be more difficult for slower learners or even average students to benefit from the general modern ‘literacy’ of the non-linear model. 
  
How to ensure fair distribution of innovation
Singapore has obtained the latest technology and innovation from the world. We also invest heavily by providing good class education to local and foreign students.

How can we ensure there is a fair distribution of innovation products?   The jump-start model creates opportunities for talent students and enriches them with international mobility.     

This in fact touches on the basic problem of the population debate and also the question of chicken and eggs. If we do not provide the best environment, the talents do not want to come. However, with international mobility, the talents may not want to share innovation wealth with you as they can move to other countries easily.

In order to keep them and keep their innovation in Singapore, we have to offer them very high salaries.  

So, we are in a ‘lock-in’ situation. We are not able to think out of the box and we continue to debate within the Singapore standard or the PAP standard of economic policies and options.

It is a hard question that requires out-of-box thinking and ‘lock-out’ solutions.   But it is also not easy to find the right answer either as talents alone are not enough.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...