Cognitive mapping the topic of national innovation system

Cognitive mapping the topic of national innovation system

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The topic of national innovation system in the subject of Business Management is complex. By making use of the cognitive mapping technique to conduct a brief literature review on the national innovation system topic, the writer renders a systemic image on the topic of national innovation system. The result of the study, in the form of a cognitive map on national innovation system, should be useful to those who are interested in the topics of cognitive mapping, literature review and national innovation system.

Key words: National innovation system, cognitive mapping, literature review

Introduction

As a topic in Business Management, national innovation system is complex. It is thus useful to employ some learning tool to conduct its study, notably for literature review purpose. For a teacher in research methods, systems thinking and management, the writer is specifically interested in finding out how the cognitive mapping technique can be employed to go through a literature review on  national innovation system. This literature review exercise is taken up and reported in this article.

On the cognitive mapping exercise for literature review

Literature review is an important intellectual learning exercise, and not just for doing final year dissertation projects for tertiary education students. On these two topics of intellectual learning and literature review, the writer has compiled some e-learning resources. They are the Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page. Conducting literature review with the cognitive mapping technique is not novel in the cognitive mapping literature, see Eden and Simpson (1989), Eden, Jones and Sims (1983), Open University (n.d) and the Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page. In this article, the specific steps involved in the cognitive mapping exercise are as follows:

Step 1: gather some main points from a number of academic journal articles on National innovation system. This result in the production of a table (Table 1) with the main points and associated references.

Step 2: consolidate  the main points from Table 1 to come up with a table listing the cognitive map variables (re: Table 2).

Step 3: link up the cognitive  map variables in a plausible way to produce a cognitive map (re: Figure 1) on the topic under review.

The next section applies these three steps to produce a cognitive map on national innovation system.

Descriptions of cognitive map variables on the national innovation system topic

From the reading of some academic articles on National innovation system, a number of main points (e.g., viewpoints, concepts and empirical findings) were gathered by the  writer. They are shown in Table 1 with explicit referencing on the points.

Table 1: Main points from the national innovation system literature and referencing

Main points from the national innovation system literature	Referencing
Point 1: "The concept of national innovation systems arose in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the dissatisfaction of a number of economists in the neoclassical mainstream of economic theory and the inadequacy of the interpretations of the role of technology, knowledge, and innovations in economic development within the standard mainstream approaches (Sharif, 2006). Currently, the concept of a national innovation system (NIS) covers all the major components of the innovation process, including organizational, social, political, and economic factors. This concept is widely used by researchers and decision makers at the regional, national, and international levels".	Golichenko, O.G. 2016. "The National  Innovation System: From Concept to Research Methodology" Problems of Economic  Transition 58(5), Routledge: 463-481.
Point 2: "... despite the successful spread of the concept [of national innovation system] in the economic and administrative environment, the very fact of its appearance has raised a number of questions. How necessary is this concept? What challenges faced by modern economic theory and practice does it solve? Is it possible to rely solely on the already known neoclassical mainstream approaches to solve the problems of innovative development?".	Golichenko, O.G. 2016. "The National  Innovation System: From Concept to Research Methodology" Problems of Economic  Transition 58(5), Routledge: 463-481.
Point 3: "From the 1950s to 1960s, the majority of neoclassical scholars reduced technological progress to an exogenous phenomenon that is external to the socioeconomic system. They regarded it as a public good. It was not competitive, and it did not have the property of exclusivity. In other words, the use of technology by particular agents did not reduce the opportunity for its consumption by the other agents, and all economic agents had the right to equal access to technology regardless of who owned it".	Golichenko, O.G. 2016. "The National  Innovation System: From Concept to Research Methodology" Problems of Economic  Transition 58(5), Routledge: 463-481.
Point 4: "Not long ago most economists believed that differences in development levels across countries were to be explained by one single factor, namely differences in the amount of accumulated capital per worker (Solow, 1956, see Fagerberg, 1994 for an overview). However, from the 1960s onwards the idea that differences in development are mainly caused by technological differences received increasing support (Gerschenkron, 1962). This view was, of course, consistent with the perspective on growth developed by Schumpeter (1934, 1943), and during the 1980s a lot of new work on cross-country differences in levels of development and growth performance inspired by this perspective emerged".	Fagerberg, J. and M. Srholec. 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development" Research Policy 37, Elsevier: 1417-1435.
Point 5: "Authors that emphasize the crucial role of technology for development tend to stress that catching up in technology is by no means a free ride. According to this perspective, countries that do not succeed in developing appropriate technological capabilities and other complementary factors should be expected to continue to lag behind. Concepts such as “social capability” (Ohkawa and Rosovsky, 1974; Abramovitz, 1986), “technological capability” (Kim, 1980, 1997), “absorptive capacity” (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and “innovation system” (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997) have been suggested and a burgeoning empirical literature has emerged focusing on these aspects of development".	Fagerberg, J. and M. Srholec. 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development" Research Policy 37, Elsevier: 1417-1435.
Point 6: "Moses Abramovitz, arguing along similar lines as Gerschenkron, suggested that differences in countries’ abilities to exploit the potential for catch-up may to a large extent be explained by differences in what he called “social capability”. What he had in mind was not so much individual skills, important as these may be, but rather what organizations in the private and public sector are capable of doing and how this is supported (or hampered) by broader societal factors. These are some of the aspects of social capability that he emphasized as being particularly important: - managerial and technical competence; - a stable and effective government, capable of supporting economic growth; - financial institutions and markets capable of mobilizing capital on a large scale; - the spread of honesty and trust in the population".	Fagerberg, J. and M. Srholec. 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development" Research Policy 37, Elsevier: 1417-1435.
Point 7: "In most accounts, the NIS [national innovation system] concept is described as that set of national institutions which contribute to generation and diffusion of new technologies and which provide the framework within which government and firms negotiate policies to influence the innovation process".	Watkins, A., T. Papaioannou, J. Mugwagwa and D. Kale. 2015. "National innovation systems and intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation n developing countries: A critical review of the literature" Research Policy 44, Elsevier: 1407-1418.
Point 8: "Although notions of technological ‘catch-up’ and economic growth have always been central to the NIS [national innovation system] concept (see Lundvall, 2007), the idea was conceived on institutional structures and activities identified in already developed countries (e.g., Japan, USA, Germany, Sweden) with developing countries largely absent from the early literature. Shortly thereafter, the NIS concept was applied to so-called newly industrialised countries (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) and countries of Latin America (e.g., Mexico and Argentina), and has, more recently, been applied to developing countries, both the emerging powers of Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, and more limitedly to less developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere".	Watkins, A., T. Papaioannou, J. Mugwagwa and D. Kale. 2015. "National innovation systems and intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation n developing countries: A critical review of the literature" Research Policy 44, Elsevier: 1407-1418.
Point 9: "Derived in part from the ideas of List (1841) and his concept of national systems of production, the NIS [national innovation system] concept was first proposed by Freeman (1982, 1987) as a response to the Washington consensus and to the neoclassical approaches to growth. In this way, the NIS concept has always been intrinsically linked to public policy (Sharif, 2006). Drawing on the work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and their Schumpeterian inspired theory of economic growth through evolutionary technological change, Freeman, along with Lundvall (1985, 1988) and again Nelson (1988,1990), argued that neoclassical growth models are inadequate as they ignored the role that technological change and innovation play, particularly in economies that are science and technology driven and which are increasingly shaped by competitive global forces".	Watkins, A., T. Papaioannou, J. Mugwagwa and D. Kale. 2015. "National innovation systems and intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation n developing countries: A critical review of the literature" Research Policy 44, Elsevier: 1407-1418.
Point 10: "While recent research has emphasised the importance of National Innovation Systems or National Systems of Innovation (NIS/NSI)1 to the economic health of countries (Block & Keller 2008). The roots of the empirical work on NIS are found in investigations into the interactions between human capital, diffusion of technology and economic growth (Solow 1960; Nelson & Phelps 1966; Arrow 1996) and further back in terms of Marshallan industrial districts (Marshall 1920)".	Bartels, F.L., H. Voss, S. Lederer and C. Bachtrog. 2012. "Determinants of National Innovation Systems: Policy implications for developing countries" Innovation 14(1), Routledge: 2-18.
Point 11: "Within the debate concerning the institutions or technology roots of economic growth (Nelson & Phelps 1966) NIS [national innovation system] has become especially important in national policy since 1980 (European Commission 2004). This is reflected not only in public policy support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) as sources of innovation (Audretsch 2004) but also by the Community Innovation Surveys of the EU2. NIS literature has expanded to cover multi-faceted dimensions in the economics of technology, industrial performance and competitiveness and innovation (including regional innovation systems, industrial dynamics and structural change)".	Bartels, F.L., H. Voss, S. Lederer and C. Bachtrog. 2012. "Determinants of National Innovation Systems: Policy implications for developing countries" Innovation 14(1), Routledge: 2-18.
Point 12: "The NIS [national innovation system], as a widely accepted analytical framework for industrial innovation on a national scale, draws attention to the importance of networks and links between diverse institutions as a major factor behind the innovative capacity of a nation. The way these diverse institutions interact with one another within the NIS may be affected by the incentive schemes and institutional arrangements and may thus lead to different innovation performances (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993). In addition, although the NIS as an analytical framework takes the nation as the unit of analysis, it does not preclude the interaction between the domestic and foreign players".	Chen, S.H. 2007. "The national innovation system and foreign R&D: the case of Taiwan" R&D Management 37(5), Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 441-453.
Point 13: "In a pioneer study on Taiwan’s NIS, Hou and San (1993) drew attention to, among other things, the role played by such a government-sponsored research institute as the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) in promoting Taiwan’s IT industry, by forging technological alliances with foreign partners and local universities. However, Taiwan’s IT industry has become so well established as to having moved from a focus on foreign technology to indigenous innovation".	Chen, S.H. 2007. "The national innovation system and foreign R&D: the case of Taiwan" R&D Management 37(5), Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 441-453.
Point 14: "As part of the socio-economic reform in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1978, the transformation of China’s national innovation system (NIS) has resulted in rapid growth of innovative outputs. Indeed, in 2012 worldwide patent  applications from the PRC surpassed those from the US. However, a closer look suggests that individual units of Chinese innovative output are of lower than average quality according to various metrics".	Schmid, J. and F.L. Wang. 2017. "Beyond National Innovation Systems: Incentives and China's Innovation Performance" Journal of Contemporary China 26(104), Routledge: 280-296.
Point 15: "In essence, a country’s NIS [national innovation system] refers to the combination of actors, institutions and linkages that create and diffuse new scientific knowledge and technology.2 More precisely, a country’s NIS refers to the public and private actors—firms, government agencies and universities—and the relationships between them—financial, technical and social—that have as amongst their objectives the advancement or diffusion of technological progress or scientific discovery".	Schmid, J. and F.L. Wang. 2017. "Beyond National Innovation Systems: Incentives and China's Innovation Performance" Journal of Contemporary China 26(104), Routledge: 280-296.
Point 16: "A country’s NIS [national innovation system] is most commonly evaluated by considering the effectiveness by which it generates, diffuses and commercializes knowledge. While no perfect measures of these processes currently exist, the metrics used here—patent applications and scientific publications—approximate national performance in these areas".	Schmid, J. and F.L. Wang. 2017. "Beyond National Innovation Systems: Incentives and China's Innovation Performance" Journal of Contemporary China 26(104), Routledge: 280-296.
Point 17: "The National Innovation System (NIS) of a country is composed of different subsystems, ranging from the economic regime, financial structure and physical infrastructure, to the education system, cultural traditions and so on. Thus, economic development is regarded as the interaction and co-evolutionary process of these subsystems (Freeman 1987; Nelson 1993). Lundvall (1992, 36) defines the NIS as the elements and relationships that interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge and are either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state".	Afzal, M.N.I. 2014. "An empirical investigation of the National Innovation System (NIS) using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the TOBIT model" International Review of Applied Economics 28(4), Routledge: 507-523.
Point 18: "Furman, Porter, and Stern (2002) investigated a formal empirical analysis in NIS studies called ‘national innovative capacity’. His empirical analysis was based on three NIS theories: endogenous growth theory (see for example, Romer 1990), Porter’s theory of international competitiveness (Porter 1990), and the national systems of innovation introduced by Lundvall (1992). Furman’s national innovative capacity illustrated a country’s innovation ability to produce and commercialise new ideas over a long period of time".	Afzal, M.N.I. 2014. "An empirical investigation of the National Innovation System (NIS) using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the TOBIT model" International Review of Applied Economics 28(4), Routledge: 507-523.
Point 19: "...   the systemic view of national systems of innovation is not fully explored by researchers in their inquiry of national systems of innovation. A careful scrutiny of the current literature on national systems of innovation reveals that instead of developing a unifying framework, extant research examining national systems of innovation usually take different approaches (e.g. structural approach, functional approach and effective approach) (Balzat and Hanusch, 2004). The lack of integrated framework on the one hand impedes our further understanding on the national systems of innovation, while on the other hand, it might also mislead the policymaking process".	Wang, Y. and Z. Zhou. 2011. "Building an integrative framework for national systems of innovation" Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 3(3), Emerald: 160-171.

With a set of main points collected, the writer produces a set of cognitive map variables. These variables are informed by the set of main points from Table 1. These variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Cognitive map variables based on Table 1

Cognitive map variables	Literature review points
Variable 1: Drivers of interest in national innovation system	Point 1: "The concept of national innovation systems arose in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the dissatisfaction of a number of economists in the neoclassical mainstream of economic theory and the inadequacy of the interpretations of the role of technology, knowledge, and innovations in economic development within the standard mainstream approaches (Sharif, 2006). Currently, the concept of a national innovation system (NIS) covers all the major components of the innovation process, including organizational, social, political, and economic factors. This concept is widely used by researchers and decision makers at the regional, national, and international levels". Point 3: "From the 1950s to 1960s, the majority of neoclassical scholars reduced technological progress to an exogenous phenomenon that is external to the socioeconomic system. They regarded it as a public good. It was not competitive, and it did not have the property of exclusivity. In other words, the use of technology by particular agents did not reduce the opportunity for its consumption by the other agents, and all economic agents had the right to equal access to technology regardless of who owned it". Point 4: "Not long ago most economists believed that differences in development levels across countries were to be explained by one single factor, namely differences in the amount of accumulated capital per worker (Solow, 1956, see Fagerberg, 1994 for an overview). However, from the 1960s onwards the idea that differences in development are mainly caused by technological differences received increasing support (Gerschenkron, 1962). This view was, of course, consistent with the perspective on growth developed by Schumpeter (1934, 1943), and during the 1980s a lot of new work on cross-country differences in levels of development and growth performance inspired by this perspective emerged". Point 8: "Although notions of technological ‘catch-up’ and economic growth have always been central to the NIS [national innovation system] concept (see Lundvall, 2007), the idea was conceived on institutional structures and activities identified in already developed countries (e.g., Japan, USA, Germany, Sweden) with developing countries largely absent from the early literature. Shortly thereafter, the NIS concept was applied to so-called newly industrialised countries (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) and countries of Latin America (e.g., Mexico and Argentina), and has, more recently, been applied to developing countries, both the emerging powers of Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, and more limitedly to less developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere".
Variable 2: Improve intellectual understanding of national innovation system	Point 5: "Authors that emphasize the crucial role of technology for development tend to stress that catching up in technology is by no means a free ride. According to this perspective, countries that do not succeed in developing appropriate technological capabilities and other complementary factors should be expected to continue to lag behind. Concepts such as “social capability” (Ohkawa and Rosovsky, 1974; Abramovitz, 1986), “technological capability” (Kim, 1980, 1997), “absorptive capacity” (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and “innovation system” (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997) have been suggested and a burgeoning empirical literature has emerged focusing on these aspects of development". Point 7: "In most accounts, the NIS [national innovation system] concept is described as that set of national institutions which contribute to generation and diffusion of new technologies and which provide the framework within which government and firms negotiate policies to influence the innovation process". Point 9: "Derived in part from the ideas of List (1841) and his concept of national systems of production, the NIS [national innovation system] concept was first proposed by Freeman (1982, 1987) as a response to the Washington consensus and to the neoclassical approaches to growth. In this way, the NIS concept has always been intrinsically linked to public policy (Sharif, 2006). Drawing on the work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and their Schumpeterian inspired theory of economic growth through evolutionary technological change, Freeman, along with Lundvall (1985, 1988) and again Nelson (1988,1990), argued that neoclassical growth models are inadequate as they ignored the role that technological change and innovation play, particularly in economies that are science and technology driven and which are increasingly shaped by competitive global forces". Point 10: "While recent research has emphasised the importance of National Innovation Systems or National Systems of Innovation (NIS/NSI)1 to the economic health of countries (Block & Keller 2008). The roots of the empirical work on NIS are found in investigations into the interactions between human capital, diffusion of technology and economic growth (Solow 1960; Nelson & Phelps 1966; Arrow 1996) and further back in terms of Marshallan industrial districts (Marshall 1920)". Point 12: "The NIS [national innovation system], as a widely accepted analytical framework for industrial innovation on a national scale, draws attention to the importance of networks and links between diverse institutions as a major factor behind the innovative capacity of a nation. The way these diverse institutions interact with one another within the NIS may be affected by the incentive schemes and institutional arrangements and may thus lead to different innovation performances (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993). In addition, although the NIS as an analytical framework takes the nation as the unit of analysis, it does not preclude the interaction between the domestic and foreign players". Point 15: "In essence, a country’s NIS [national innovation system] refers to the combination of actors, institutions and linkages that create and diffuse new scientific knowledge and technology.2 More precisely, a country’s NIS refers to the public and private actors—firms, government agencies and universities—and the relationships between them—financial, technical and social—that have as amongst their objectives the advancement or diffusion of technological progress or scientific discovery". Point 17: "The National Innovation System (NIS) of a country is composed of different subsystems, ranging from the economic regime, financial structure and physical infrastructure, to the education system, cultural traditions and so on. Thus, economic development is regarded as the interaction and co-evolutionary process of these subsystems (Freeman 1987; Nelson 1993). Lundvall (1992, 36) defines the NIS as the elements and relationships that interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge and are either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state". Point 18: "Furman, Porter, and Stern (2002) investigated a formal empirical analysis in NIS studies called ‘national innovative capacity’. His empirical analysis was based on three NIS theories: endogenous growth theory (see for example, Romer 1990), Porter’s theory of international competitiveness (Porter 1990), and the national systems of innovation introduced by Lundvall (1992). Furman’s national innovative capacity illustrated a country’s innovation ability to produce and commercialise new ideas over a long period of time". Point 19: "...   the systemic view of national systems of innovation is not fully explored by researchers in their inquiry of national systems of innovation. A careful scrutiny of the current literature on national systems of innovation reveals that instead of developing a unifying framework, extant research examining national systems of innovation usually take different approaches (e.g. structural approach, functional approach and effective approach) (Balzat and Hanusch, 2004). The lack of integrated framework on the one hand impedes our further understanding on the national systems of innovation, while on the other hand, it might also mislead the policymaking process".
Variable 3: Effective national innovation system practices	Point 6: "Moses Abramovitz, arguing along similar lines as Gerschenkron, suggested that differences in countries’ abilities to exploit the potential for catch-up may to a large extent be explained by differences in what he called “social capability”. What he had in mind was not so much individual skills, important as these may be, but rather what organizations in the private and public sector are capable of doing and how this is supported (or hampered) by broader societal factors. These are some of the aspects of social capability that he emphasized as being particularly important: - managerial and technical competence; - a stable and effective government, capable of supporting economic growth; - financial institutions and markets capable of mobilizing capital on a large scale; - the spread of honesty and trust in the population". Point 11: "Within the debate concerning the institutions or technology roots of economic growth (Nelson & Phelps 1966) NIS [national innovation system] has become especially important in national policy since 1980 (European Commission 2004). This is reflected not only in public policy support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) as sources of innovation (Audretsch 2004) but also by the Community Innovation Surveys of the EU2. NIS literature has expanded to cover multi-faceted dimensions in the economics of technology, industrial performance and competitiveness and innovation (including regional innovation systems, industrial dynamics and structural change)". Point 13: "In a pioneer study on Taiwan’s NIS, Hou and San (1993) drew attention to, among other things, the role played by such a government-sponsored research institute as the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) in promoting Taiwan’s IT industry, by forging technological alliances with foreign partners and local universities. However, Taiwan’s IT industry has become so well established as to having moved from a focus on foreign technology to indigenous innovation".
Variable 4: Learn from national innovation system practices	Point 2: "... despite the successful spread of the concept [of national innovation system] in the economic and administrative environment, the very fact of its appearance has raised a number of questions. How necessary is this concept? What challenges faced by modern economic theory and practice does it solve? Is it possible to rely solely on the already known neoclassical mainstream approaches to solve the problems of innovative development?". Point 14: "As part of the socio-economic reform in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1978, the transformation of China’s national innovation system (NIS) has resulted in rapid growth of innovative outputs. Indeed, in 2012 worldwide patent  applications from the PRC surpassed those from the US. However, a closer look suggests that individual units of Chinese innovative output are of lower than average quality according to various metrics". Point 16: "A country’s NIS [national innovation system] is most commonly evaluated by considering the effectiveness by which it generates, diffuses and commercializes knowledge. While no perfect measures of these processes currently exist, the metrics used here—patent applications and scientific publications—approximate national performance in these areas".

The next step is to relate the cognitive map variables to make up a cognitive map on national innovation system. The cognitive map and its explanation are presented in the next section.

A cognitive map on national innovation system and its interpretation

By relating the four variables identified in Table 2, the writer comes up with a cognitive map on national innovation system, as shown in Figure 1.

These cognitive  map variables, four of them altogether, are related to constitute a systemic image of national innovation system. The links in the cognitive map (re: Figure 1) indicate direction of influences between variables. The + sign shows that an increase in one variable leads to an increase in another variable while a -ve sign tells us that in increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another variable.  If there no signs shown on the arrows, that means the influences can be positive or negative.  For further information on national innovation system, readers are referred to the Literature on national innovation system Facebook page.

Concluding remarks

The cognitive mapping exercise captures in one diagram some of the main variables involved in national innovation system. The resultant cognitive map promotes an exploratory way to study national innovation system in a holistic tone. The experience of the cognitive mapping exercise is that it can be a quick, efficient and entertaining way to explore a complex topic such as national innovation system in Business Management. Finally, readers who are interested in cognitive mapping should also find the article informative on this mapping topic.

Bibliography

1.      Afzal, M.N.I. 2014. "An empirical investigation of the National Innovation System (NIS) using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the TOBIT model" International Review of Applied Economics 28(4), Routledge: 507-523.

2.      Bartels, F.L., H. Voss, S. Lederer and C. Bachtrog. 2012. "Determinants of National Innovation Systems: Policy implications for developing countries" Innovation 14(1), Routledge: 2-18.

3.      Chen, S.H. 2007. "The national innovation system and foreign R&D: the case of Taiwan" R&D Management 37(5), Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 441-453.

4.      Eden, C. and P. Simpson. 1989. "SODA and cognitive mapping in practice", pp. 43-70, in Rosenhead, J. (editor) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester.

5.      Eden, C., C. Jones and D. Sims. 1983. Messing about in Problems: An informal structured approach to their identification and management, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

6.      Fagerberg, J. and M. Srholec. 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development" Research Policy 37, Elsevier: 1417-1435.

7.      Golichenko, O.G. 2016. "The National  Innovation System: From Concept to Research Methodology" Problems of Economic  Transition 58(5), Routledge: 463-481.

8.      Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-cognitive-mapping-800894476751355/).

9.      Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).

10. Literature on national innovation system Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-national-innovation-system-184917495380183/).

11. Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/).

12. Open University. n.d. "Sign graph" Systems Thinking and Practice (T552): Diagramming, Open University, U.K. (url address: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/T552/) [visited at April 10, 2017].

13. Schmid, J. and F.L. Wang. 2017. "Beyond National Innovation Systems: Incentives and China's Innovation Performance" Journal of Contemporary China 26(104), Routledge: 280-296.

14. Wang, Y. and Z. Zhou. 2011. "Building an integrative framework for national systems of innovation" Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 3(3), Emerald: 160-171.

15. Watkins, A., T. Papaioannou, J. Mugwagwa and D. Kale. 2015. "National innovation systems and intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation n developing countries: A critical review of the literature" Research Policy 44, Elsevier: 1407-1418.