Convergence

It took me a few minutes to think up a title for this entry. But I suppose this kind of covers it. During the past few days a number of things have interestingly come together. Its amazing how some activities can fade out and make room for others to fade in. You wonder if the synergy between events is a coincidence, or that you actually construct it by making good use of otherwise random circumstances. I tend to think that an associative mind will associate things that would otherwise not be connected. The art is to configure seemingly disconected things into somehting meaningfull. Pretty abstract huh?

Science versus research

It was a beautifull summer evening. Maybe one of the last in the netherlands for this year. So we sat outside, had coffie, read the paper and so on. I was tempted to hook up my laptop but didn't do so. So I looked for something to read, and finally thought of the books I bought a few weeks ago at the bookshop at Tilburg University. One book was on case-studies, the other on research methods for business.

In the last few hours I have scanned the books - both are actually quite interesting - my intuition when buying them was good.

Some of the key things I have been wrestling with in the current field I'm working in is what types of resesearch are being done - and what types of research are actually sesnsible. The frist and formost question is what may be considered "research". An expectation I have is that when research becomes more case-specific (versus general), and when it becomes more driven by practical problems; it is considerd to be less "scientific". Question is what the features are of "scientific" processes, and if specific/problem oriented research is necessarily less scientific.

This discussion is important. Opionions on what research and science are influence the selection of research projects and programs that are eligible for (goverment) funding.

Getting back to the books - the intersting thing is they both seem to support the notion that both case specific and problem oriented research may be conducted in a scientific manner. Former books on research methods have been less clear.

In any case I have found inspiration in the books to write up an article/booklet an the type of research being conducted in the field information systems for crisis response and management (ISCRAM). What types of research are actually being done? What types are being done a lot; what types less? Why is that so? What types of research do different stakeholders prefer? Why?

So - in a way this is a kind of reserach on a research field. That research is driven by the expectation that the distribution or research types is skewed towards fundamental non-problem oriented research. There is nothing wrong with that type of research - but perhaps those funding such research have different expectations about the impact of the results.

So this it it for now. I aim to think outloud here during the coming months and gradually outline, an actually the perform some of the research sketche here.

ISCRAM summerschool sparks up blog writing

It has been quite a while since I posted anything at all in this blog. There were servel reasons for that. One was, that I simply could'nt decide which direction to take. I've decided to split up my blogs into a private one for the family, an open one on general topics, and a special one on more work-related topics. I'ts difficult to draw the boundaries. That is also true for the other channels: facebook, linkedin, twitter, Hyves an what have you.

I suppose the start to get started again has been the ISCRAM summerschool in Tilburg last week. Simply having the many conversations with a diverse group of people was really stimulating. All the thems that I have been interested in during the past years were touched on:

• the problem of innovation and cooperation between goverments, practioners, businesses and researchers (in the context of Information systems for crisis response and managemnet - ISCRAM)
• the dillmea's of open source software versus proprietary software
• the use of social media in crisis management - but also in research and development
• the emergence of "combined systems" where many human beings and many intelligent artificial agents interact

There is much to be said about all topics. I tend to do so in conversations, meetings, reports, proposals and so on, but never in publically accesible publications. That's not a good thing. So maybe mainting a blog is a first step in taking a more public approach.

Links: www.iscram.org; www.combinedsystems.nl

What's the story?

One of the basic templates of thinking that I have found to be quite useful boils down to three questions:

* What's the story?

* Does the story correspond to the facts? And if not sufficiently:

* What can be done to improve the correspondence of the story and the facts in the future?

So what is the story behind the current 500 million budget for FES? 

What is the purpose of this type of spending? What effects, what impact is expected from the many projects?

The general assumption seems to be that if we invest money into scientific research, that this will stimulate innovation, which will ultimately benefit the economy. If you like there is a "mental model" here, a practical theory that justifies the large investment being made.

The question is of course, if this general idea really works out in practice.  Answering that question is of course not so easy.  It would be a good idea to have a look at what evaluations of the former 37 projects have been made, and what conclusions were drawn. 

The most obvious work that was done to evaluate the programs was the the formal "Mid Term Review".  The formal public documents on this review proces are available on: http://www.senternovem.nl/bsik/algemeen/index.asp.

The most recent publication in this series is actually the position of the Dutch Kabinet on the mid term evaluation of the BSIK projects.  ("Kabinetsreactie over de midterm evaluatie van de Bsik projecten"). 

I expect that it is interesting to start here. What is the current formal perception of the Kabinet on these projects? What was expected? What are the perceived outcomes? What are the conclusions for the next time around?

To be continued.

Some first questions on goverment spending on research and innovation

Currently the dutch goverment is in the midst of a process to spend a (FES) fund of 500 million euro's on innovative research projects. The purpose of this money is to select the best parts of the 37 BSIK research programs that were funded four years ago, when a budget of  800 million euros was available. Many of those 4-6 year programs have ended or will end this year. With the reduction of the available fund to almost half its size not all topics an consortium partners will have place in the new programs.

The money will be spent selectively in 8 thematic areas:  hightechsystems en materialen; food & flowers; life sciences & health; water, climate and space; ICT; chemistry and energy; creative industry and education.

Baground information (in dutch) can be found here:

http://www.senternovem.nl/bsik/algemeen/index.asp -> History and status of projects funded from the 800 million made available in 2003.

http://www.senternovem.nl/bsik/fes_ronde_2009/index.asp -> current information on new the fund and how to apply.

In the area of ICT it has been decided that only one large program will be submitted, in contrast to the previous round where several competing ICT programs were submitted. The ministeries have asked ICT-regie (www.ictregie.nl)  to direct the effort of making this one program. It has therefore been up to them to make the initial selection of partners and topics, that are believed to be the best to spend tax-payers money on.

During the last months I have been able to participate in a very small piece of the development of the ICT program, and have thus been able to witness part of the proces. This experience has revived the interests I had 5 years ago to investigate how goverment funded research and innovation processes take place.

Many questions could be asked from a scientific and a political point of view.  In general the most important one is perhaps: What have we learned from the previous 37 programs that were funded at the end of 2003? Does what we have learned have any impact on the way we develop and select the programs for the next round?

This is truly a question, to which I do not yet have an answer. But in all honesty, I must admit,  that I do have a slight worry that it is very difficult to learn from past program experiences, and consequently that not a great deal will change.  Let's say that this is a hypothesis, that requires further refinement.

On another level, an important question is if we would at all want any changes in the way this type of money is spent. I suppose the answer to this question is not so much a matter of facts, but a matter of choice. How should money for research and innovatio be spent under the given circumstances?

A final question could be: Is there anything special about the current circumstances, that justifies a better evaluation of past programs and perhaps a change in the way future programs are positioned?

Blog entries should be short.  This seems like a nice point to stop for now.

Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good

I am often reminded of this saying. And it certainly does apply to me. Perhaps not in everything that I do. I can be quite action oriented. I can be opportunistic in the positive sense of the word. But not in all things. The one area I have been very very reluctant to do things and to finish them of is in public writing. I have hardly published anything, and it is not for lack of ideas or materials. I have just been to darn fussy. If I was to publish anything of a scientific nature, it had to pretty new or fundamental, and yes, pretty perfect. The same goes for articles of a more opionating, political nature.

Next to wanting to have things just right, I think I have also worried about intellectual property. During the years that I had a small software engineering company, I was very strict about maintaing the IPR on the basic framework I was developing and reusing from project to project.  That wasn't unreasonable, given the vast amounts of project-non-specific investment the framework required.  But you wonder if any intellectual framework I might now have in mind is worth protecting at all. It's not the same game. 

Clearly the disadvantage of protecting a (basic) idea, is that few people will read it.  That means that few people can use or steal it. But it also means that few can comment on it, and that few can give you credit for it.  

So what is it I want? Do I at all care if people would use ideas, without giving me any credit for them? Do I at all think, that I will produce anything important enough worth stealing? Well - yes and no.  The 'no' is that even my best ideas are developed in response to, or in interaction with other people. I am never starting from scratch.  And most ideas are never completely new. Someone somewhere will have had comparable thoughts, perhaps in another language or with the use of other terms. So I should not be so bold as to think that I will ever come up with anything so brilliant, that no one has ever thought of it. But there is a "yes" too. Use of good ideas, without reference and credit - perhaps unitentionally - does take place.

So what to do? It doesn't seem wise to just sit on ideas, and in practice it is difficult to do so if you want to function well within a social context.  But what I could and should do, is write up the ideas I have, actively share them. If in doing so I produce anything at all origianl - there will be evidence of that, and I suppose that in the end I will get some credit for that. 

Ah, but then there is the aspect of how ideas are made public. Making an excellent powerpoint presentation is not quite the same as publishing in some scientifically recognized journal. And writing something up on a blog for that matter, does not have much scientific value either. Perhaps in content, but not in formal recognition. So wouldn't it be nasty, if one would put up really good ideas in a blog, and then see that those very ideas are put into a scientific journal publication - without reference. Yes that would be nasty. And - I don't know what the current morals are - must one reference blogs too? Should one? Or would that be beneath the standards of the established scientific community?

In any case I have (finally) decided not to worry about this AT ALL.  In this blog I will write whatever I feel is worth sharing with others. Perhaps some things should later be integrated into more formal publications - an then I will try to do so.  If by chance someone beats me to that - then it is just too bad. 

The advantage of this medium, is that the time between having an idea and sharing it is minimal. That also makes it possible to use blog posts in the conversations that are taking place now. Formal publications, I expect, will quickly fall out of context. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - but on the other hand I do feel that there is great value in context-specific conversation and knowledge. But that is a topic for later on.

I suppose this little brainstrom, that I have now shared publically, is meant to push myself accross a threshold; for better or for worse.

Well then: by pushing "publish post" it will have been done.

Here goes.

A source of energy

I didn't buy these

Materials

I've acquired a lot of materials during the past years. And many of them have been laying in my back yard, waiting to be used. Some were once applied in a project, often with substantial effort and at considerable costs. But at some point a project ends, constructions are dismanteled and materials are thrown away. I have often been reluctant to do so, thinking that I could reuse things; perhaps reassemble them into something new. But to be honest: I usually buy new stuff for new projects. In part that is a result of working together in teams. In new projects we tend to acquire new stuff, that we can all agree on.

Fresh start

There must be a place to start. So here it is.