and setting the‘granularity'of emergent priorities at a level that makes them‘operationalisable'in informing research and development fundiin programmes.
The exercise was organised by the FNR (Fonds national de la recherche or National research Fund), the only research council in Luxembourg.
research system 1. Introduction In 2005, Luxembourg began to embark upon a‘national'technology foresight exercise, with the primary aim of identifying newresearch domains for the National research Fund (FNR) to support*Corresponding author.
and has a small (and young) public research base. However, it is also rather unique in that it has enacted sizeable increases in spending on research and development (R&d) over the last decade
and is set to increase budgets further over the next few years. Thus, the challenge for Luxembourg lies not in distributing limited funds among its existing science community.
R&d carried out in Luxembourg was largely the preserve of the private sector particularly the steel industry and even today,
Early public investments in R&d and innovation were influenced by private sector activities and largely sought to support them.
and the establishment of several public research centres in 1987, with the primary aim of supporting technological innovation in firms.
the Luxembourg government decided in 1999 to increase the level of publicly funded research. Accordingly, the government went on to develop a focused STI policy,
the Ministry of Culture, Higher education and Research (MCHER) as the key policy centre with respect to Luxembourg research;
and the National research Fund (FNR) as a source of prioritised funding for multi-annual research programmes.
outlines the increase in public funding for publli R&d in millions of Euros. These unprecedented budget increases possibly place Luxembourg in a unique position among its partners in Europe,
although the level of gross expenditure on r&d (GERD) in Luxembourg at 1. 25%of GDP in 2006 still remains one of the lowest in the Europeea Union (EU). Afuller reviewof the evolution of the Luxembourg research system is offered by Meyer
and budget increases at the turn of the century represent attempts to shift public research away from a largely‘responsive'and mostly industrially-oriented mode to a more long-term, strategic mode.
and technology priority setting in a small country 935 Expenditure on Public research 0 20 000 000 40 000 000 60 000 000 80 000 000 100
000 000 120 000 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Public research centres FNR UL Figure 1. Public
funds to public R&d, 2000 2007(¤)Source: MCHER). ) Box 1. Parallel strategic initiatives. The OECD Review of Innovation policy was conducted in 2006 and commissioned by the MCHER.
in order to better ensure that additional public investment in R&d will yield expected economic and social benefits.
and public research actors (including the FNR) with a view to enhancing the latter's accountability and efficiency.
The City of Science is an initiative of the MCHER to regroup the University of Luxembourg and the Public research Centres on a single new site in the south of Luxembourg near the town of Esch-sur-Alzette.
and aims to house the related research activities of the various research actors in purpose-built infrastructures.
The Centre is to be set up in cooperation between three US institutions, three Luxembourg public research centres,
Research activities will mainly cover the topic of molecular diagnostics with a 5-year budget of¤140 million.
in order to achieve the objectives of national R&d policy. An important aspect of FNR support is its main conditionality on scientific excellence.
In this way, FNR funding is intended to shift the Luxembourg research system towards conducting more leading-edge science
on the contrary, funding is directed through multi-annual research programmes. So the FNR has faced the challenge of identifying‘appropriate'programmes that will not only attract sufficient high-quality proposals from Luxembourg scientists
the strategic research funding agency) level and the operational (research performing institutes) level (OECD 1991). Furthermore, different sorts of things might be prioritissed including scientific fields, industrial areas, research facilities, types of research performing institutes, and so on.
The OECD (1991) has distinguished therefore between thematic priorities concerned with scientific fields, technology areas, industrial sectors, issues,
etc. and structuura priorities concerned with issues such as research infrastructures, higher education teaching programmes, innovation promotion initiatives, venture capital markets,
or research performers have tended to keep priority setting‘in-house'.'4 But with the use of techniques like foresight, these processes have been opened up more widely.
'since future investments in research infrastructures or future changes in policies/regulations, for example, can make a significant difference to a country's ability to exploit a particular S&t thematic area.
analysing international trends in research priorities, and identifying possible priority tracks for research (see Glod, Duprel,
the second phase of the foresight focused upon a set of broad themes with the aim of identifying national priorities for research funding.
and a series of face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, including senior researchers within Luxembourg and abroad, as well as companies and public administrators.
and thematic research priorities were collected from 13 countries. The latter was combined with the findings of interviews to generate an initial‘long-list'of topics to be tested'by the research community.
This list was supposed not to be definitive, but was intended rather to‘seed'discussion and debate in the following Step in the second part of Phase 1,
assessment of domains Future trends Luxembourg context Research priorities candidates Conclusion & recommendations Phase 2: Setting Context/Identifying Priorities Data collection Bibliometrics Interviews International research trends Evaluation of FNR programmes Mapping of Lux.
Research landscape‘Long list'of possible research domains Aims: Method: Input: Results: Phase1: Creating a Baseline Figure 2. Phases and steps of FNR Foresight.
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 939 where respondents were asked to rate research domains against a battery of‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'criteria.
Phase 2 of the exercise was devoted to establishing possible priorities for public research in Luxembourg. For this purpose
to frame tentative research priorities in concrete terms, to finalise their definitions, to reviewthe underpinnings for their objectives
and the nature of processes of deliberation. 5. 1. Variety and change in the meanings of Foresight The FNR Foresight was born out of the necessity for the FNR to define new research programmes.
While some of the first generation research programmes (seven programmes were launched in the period 2000 2003) were still ongoing by 2007,
first, to call on the public research institutes to submit ideas for new research programmes; and second, to use a foresight exercise to identify
but is also responsible for setting policy across the whole of the research system. Finally, there is the research community,
which not only submits proposals, but also shapes the detail of programmes and their calls. As we will show,
the FNR first issued a call to the research community to submit ideas for new programmes.
The research community's ideas were dismissed therefore and the proposed foresight exercise was given the go-ahead by the Board,
but also to consider the structural aspects and funding mechanisms and instruments of public research. Proposing this broad perspective rightly anticipated problems that would arise with any approach that sought only to identify thematic priorities without taking into account structural factors.
Later on, it even requested the Fund to broaden the scope of the analysis from the‘mere'definition of new FNR programmes to the identification of nationwide research priorities, i e.‘
To ensure the specialisation of public research centre facilities into centres with a limited number of specific areas of high level expertise;
These adaptations in approach and scope were sometimes misunderstood by the FNR Board and led also to a considerable amount of confusion in the research community.
which presented the first opportunity that participants in the exercise had to discuss the future of the research system together.
Several particiipant rightly made the point that consideration of domain priority areas could not be done in isolation from discussions of research infrastructures, the new University, and so on.
and technology priority setting in a small country 941 research was not to fall under identified research priorities.
and identifying‘competence niches'The dilemma around the level of‘granularity'of research topics to be prioritised already highligghte in Section 3 was understood well by the FNR and its consultants from the outset.
Accordingly, the online survey and subsequent workshops invited participants to nominate new research axes as well. Despite its apparent elegance, there were problems with this schema.
the research community had difficulties relating to the ranked research domains being offered by the consultants, even though the list was derived almost solely from the responses of that same community to the online survey. 10 In the subsequent workshops held in Phase 2,
and to reshape the research topics. Once the topics were established, Table 1. Levels of‘granularity'for mapping research areas (a few examples are shown).
Thematic field Research area Research domain Research axis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Environmental sciences Global change and ecosystem Water management Drinking water
ICT Infrastructure Telecoms Voip Social & human sciences Economy, policies, institutional framework Economy and finance Dynamics of financial wealth creation Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december
This process led to the selection and reformulation of the research topics into‘candidates'for national research priorities.
which presented them as the research priorities for Luxembourg to the MCHER. An even more fundamental problem lay with the widening of the exercise's scope to include identification of‘national'priorities
Picking up on the OECD distinction between different levels of priorities (i e. policy, strategic and operational), the MCHER should have been interested naturally in Level 2 of the schema research areas.
the exercise was only able to identify Level 2 research area priorities insofar as Level 3 research domain prioritisation implied them.
Rather than further prioritise the 18 (Level 3) research domain areas, 11 the natural FNR response was to provide the MCHER with a list of six (Level 2) research areas (essentially headings) under
it is necessary to take into account recurring discussions in Luxembourg on the need to identify Table 2. National research priorities in the shape of research areas and research domains.
National priorities National priorities (Research areas)( Research domains) Innovation in services Business service design and innovation Fostering the economic and legal environment for Innovation performance and development of the financial systems
Thus, the expectation of the MCHER was for the exercise to identify a much smaller number of research areas/domains perhaps just two
since the FNR is mandated to serve all of the national research community. Perhaps more fundamentally, niches tend to be difficult to plan
On top of this, the workshops were often the first opportunity that people had to discuss the future of the research system together
but was made perhaps difficult by a perceived situation where stakes were felt to be high (national research priorities were being determined)
In the case of FNR Foresight, these include the FNR itself, the MCHER, the research community and, to a lesser extent, the business community.
Moreover, the performance contraact signed between the research performers and the ministry of research do not mention directly the national priorities
or the Foresight results, leaving the degree of ownership within the research institutions and themchersomewhat unclear for the moment.
with a budget amounting to 12%of the national public R&d budget for this sole programme.
Within the research community, the reputation of the FNR in matters of transparency and openness was enhanced further,
the exercise strengthened the link between research performers and the research funder. The exercise also helped the FNR to better comprehend the Luxembourg STI environment while strongly highlighhtin the dearth of statistics and analyses.
Furthermore, the FNR and the other public research actors benefited from a strong presence in the national media,
thus familiarising the wider public with the stakeholders as well as with the role of science in a modern society. 6. 3. Impacts on the research community As mentioned in the previous section,
some of the public research centres have conducted their own mini-foresight studies, influenced and inspired by the FNR exercise.
Many senior scientific personnel from the private sector used the exercise to underline the need for high quality public research as a prerequisite for innovation and mutually rewarding cooperation between both sectors. 7. Conclusions For those familiar with running foresight exercises
Nevertheless, the exercise's compartmentalisation almost certainly weakened its potential to directly inform developments in other parts of the research system.
A related point was the apparent tension between the need to maintain thematic‘variety'in the research system and the need to build‘critical mass'in a few selected niches.
of granularity that made them suitable for informing FNR's R&d funding programmes, but confusion set in
Second, it is clear that a forward-looking process like foresight needs to be underpinned by sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'data, e g. publication data, statistics on the national R&d environment, reports on the state of economy, environment or society
Some particiipant particularly those who were already critical of the performance of the public research centres believed that the exercise was flawed by relying so heavily upon the ideas and visions of existing researchers.
there is a strong commitmeen from policy makers to build a more forward-looking and strategic culture across the public research base
Notes on contributors Frank Glod is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg
Carlo Duprel is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg and was involved in the conduct of the FNR Foresight study.
Michael Keenan is Senior Research fellow at the Manchester Institute of Innovation research and acted as adviser to the FNR Foresight study.
these are sizeable budget increases for public research. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 950 F. Glod et al. 4. The use of the term‘in-house'can refer to actors beyond the officials of a ministry
and their methodology had to be adapted to the degree of progress made up to that point. 8. Other elements included the review analysis by the OECD on Luxembourg's public research apparatus, the multiannnua development programmes of the public research centres and the University of Luxembourg,
Moreover, this number of priorities across the whole of the research system seemed reasonable and was considered a suitable basis upon which to formulate new FNR programmes. 12.
An exception was the Biomedical domain where the focus of the initial Foresight results lay largely on Public health, Regenerative Medicine and Translational Research and
National priorities for public research and other findings. Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche. FNR. 2007b.
In line with these concepts, the 1990s were also characterised by a great reluctance of government policy to prioritise research themes and select technologies in a top down manner.
the Austrian innovation system has gone through a phase of fast growth of R&d expenditures and internationalisation.
Austria has accomplished major structural reforms, affecting universities as well as research funding bodies, many of which are located in Vienna.
transparent and open participatory governance processes Ultimate Influence on (research policy) agendas of actors, both public and private (as revealed, for instance,
and strategy process was positioned. 3. 1.‘Systems Research in the Urban area':'groundwork for RTI policy The strategy process could draw on solid grounds.
In addition to a number of specific studies, it built specifically on the results of the large-scale research programme‘Systems Research in the Urban area'that provided the analytical groundwork
and took first exploratory steps towards identifying future challenges for the RTI policy of the City of Vienna. 4 The research programme was implemented as a joint undertaking by the City of Vienna and Austrian Research centres.
it needs to be noted that the research programme and its forward-looking projects were designed at a time, when there was not even a first discussion Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:10 03 december 2014 958 K. M. Weber et al. about setting up a broader participatory process on research
In fact, when the research programme was started at the end of 2004, the suggestion of launching a participatory foresight process as part of the research programme was rejected by the representatives of the City of Vienna in the management team of the programme.
The goal of this comprehensive research programme was to identify scientifically founded observations and analyses to underpin the development of an integrated, future-oriented urban research and innovation policy.
Initiatives in this urban policy area were expected to contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of firms in the city,
Central to the research programme was the combination of different perspectives on the situation of the urban innovation system.
2) Research priorities and knowledge transfer;(3) Science and society;(4) Urban development for research. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:10 03 december 2014 Trade-offs between policy impacts of future-oriented analysis 959 Panel 1 FTI in business Integrative concept for RTI-strategy Panel
coming either from a municipal department in charge of research agendas or from a public research funding agency in charge of research agendas,
With the regional research and innovation policy bodies being still in a process of emergence, several Viennese organisations were not able to tell with whom they would cooperate on joint actions.
2) 22,000 individuals employed in the R&d sector;(3) 800 companies engaged in R&d;(4) 20%of the population having a university degree;(
5) 200 SMES taking part in projects of the EU's Seventh Research Framework programme (FP7;(
6) Rate of female researchers in the business sector is to increase by 100 per cent. 4. 2. Five main challenges A cross-panel analysis revealed five main challenges that would need to be tackled until 2015
Options for translating these goals into specific measures can be conceived along the lines of the main determinants of innovation ranging from push factors in the area of science (e g.
R&d subsidies, selective subsidies complementary to national subsidies), through acceleration of the transfer process (selective measures such as licensing initiatives, venture capital),
3) Research and the city communication, learning and public awareness: The three terms form a catchphrase to express the serious interest in strengthening the critical public dialogue about RTI, both within Vienna and on the international stage.
Vienna is to be established as the centre of international research networks, and of networks in the CENTROPE region in particular.
2) Expansion of the‘Research and the City'campaign. Under the slogan‘Vienna research in dialogue',the City will address essential contemporary and future issues in the field of science, research and technology.
In fact, in response to the economic crisis in early 2009, the City of Vienna decided to spend an additional¤60 million on research infrastructures and cutting-edge research as part of a broader economic and employment stimulus package.
it is rather unlikely that it will lead to the emergence of a more forward-looking culture in innovation and research organisations.
and thus to the consideration of alternative futures had been addressed in the forward-looking part Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:10 03 december 2014 Trade-offs between policy impacts of future-oriented analysis 967 of the preceding research programme on the Viennese innovation system,
In fact, it was a lucky coincidence that the foresight process‘Wien denkt Zukunft'could draw on a comprehensive analytical basis provided by the research programme‘Systems Research in the Urban area
Notes on contributors Matthias Weber is Head of Research, Technology and Innovation (RTI) Policy Unit at Austrian Institute of technology (AIT) invienna.
Between 2006 and 2008 hewas leading a research programme on regional innovation patterns and policy in cooperation with the City of Vienna.
Klaus Kubeczko is Senior researcher at Austrian Institute of technology (AIT) in the Department of Foresight & Policy development.
He studied economics and has been doing research and foresight projects in the area of research, technoloog and innovation policy, in particular related to regional and technological innovation systems such as transport and energy.
Alexander Kaufmann is Senior researcher at Austrian Institute of technology (AIT) in the Department of Foresight & Policydevelopment.
His main research interests are related to regional development research performance and systemic innovation policy instruments. Barbara Grunewald has been Research Associate at Austrian Institute of technology (AIT) in the Department of Foresight & Policy development since 2005.
She studied Economics and Philosophy and is doing her Phd research on the role of diversity in innovation systems.
4. The result of the research programme can be accessed at the following website: http://www. innovationspolitik-wien. at References Carlsson, B.,L. Elg,
Linking Research and Practice',Brighton, 11 13 september 2006. Cassingena Harper, J, . and L. Georghiou. 2005.
Networks of innovators, a synthesis of research issues. Research policy 20, no. 5: 499 514. Freeman, C. 2002.
Continental, national, and sub-national innovation systems complementarity and economic growth. Research policy 31, no. 2: 191 211.
Havas, A d. Schartinger, and M. Weber. 2007. Experiences and practices of technology foresight in the European region.
Report to the Austrian Council for Research and Technology development. Vienna: ARC Systems Research. Smith, K. 2000.
Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise&innovation Management Studies 1, no. 1: 73 102.
Research report ARC sys/ZIT-0039. Vienna: ARGE Innovationsorientierte Nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung. Additional Internet sources: More Information (in German) on the foresight and strategy process is available at:
http://www. wiendenktzukunft. at/downloads/strategie english. pdf The results of the research programme‘Systems Research in the Urban area'can be found at:
According to the Foresiigh Online Guide published by the European commission's Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS)( 2005 7)‘ a vision is imagined an representation or a shared picture of the (usually desired future'.
Theoretical background This paper is inspired by three research areas addressing foresight as a sociopolitical phenomenon around the millennial turn.
me to republish his illustration as figure 2. Notes on contributor Stefanie Jenssen is a research fellow at the Centre for Technology,
Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, Norway and writing her Phd on values and uncertainty in foresight informing research policy priorities.
Foresight practitioner and theorist Ron Johnston (2008,18) asserts:‘‘Most OECD member Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:10 03 december 2014 Foresight and governance:
and guidance literature interact with research areas of science and technology studies (STS), especially regarding insights about the relationships between‘given facts and future values'.
Theorist of urban planning Huw Thomas takes a pragmatic position when discussing the relationship of planning, power and values:‘
problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society 20:1 33. Berkhout, F, . and J. Hertin. 2002.
Towards a research agenda for environment, learning and foresight. Paper presented at 3rd Strathclyde international conference on organisational foresight, 16 18 august 2007, University of Strathclyde Graduate school of Business, Glasgow, UK.
European commission Joint research Centre Italy. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Colombo, M. 2003. Reflexivity and narratives in action research:
Research Evaluation 13, no. 3: 143 53. Cunliffe, A. 2005. The need for reflexivity in public administration.
European commission's Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS. 2005 7). FOR-LEARN online foresight guide.
the role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities, 13 14 may 2002, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville, Spain.
Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional research. http://www. nibr. no/publikasjoner/rapporter/172/(accessed September 2009.
Planning Practice & Research 19, no. 2: 195 209. Shipley, R, . and R. T. Newkirk. 1999.
Quick technology intelligence processes Alan L. Porter*,1 R&d, Search Technology, Inc.,4960 Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
I describe what we call btech miningq-deriving technology intelligence especially from R&d information resources 1, 2. The phenomenon of interest is speed,
patents, R&d projects, and so forth. In addition, many researchers share information via the Internet (e g.,, physicists increasingly post their papers at arxiv. org.
In our SOFC example, we use R&d publication abstract records from the Science Citation Index (SCI) and INSPEC,
So we turn to software tools to help bprofile the R&d domainq 5, 6. The second and third QTIP factors go hand-in-hand.
o another indicator of how hot a research area is the ratio of conference to journal publication relatively low for this subtopic in comparison to the larger research domain we might want to explore this discrepancy with our subject experts,
FC Allen Gngineering FC Current Collector Mitsubishi SOFC Ceramic Fuel cells FC Interconnect Korea Inst of Energy Research SOFC Interconnect Gas Research institute SOFC Intreconnect
From this digest of the company's open R&d face, we pose the action question for managerial decision.
I emphasize mining of R&d publication and patent abstract records. But note that we also tap Internet sources here, for company information.
For instance, these analyses might point to key research centers; we could then seek their websites to learn more about their interests, contact information, etc.
In general, we prefer to first exploit the R&d databases, then update and probe using the internet.
and technology managers would naturally pursue empirical means to manage R&d and its transition into effective innovations.
and R&d managers to gain a global perspective on entire bodies of research. That can help position research programs
and identify complementary efforts by others. On another level, the Dutch government allocates research support to universities based in part upon their publication records.
It helps devise internal R&d priorities to hit the gaps in external development efforts.!Technology assessment Again, QTIP can help scope the extent of R&d activities.
Exploiting contextual information resources that cover policy, standards, public concerns, possible health and environmental hazards, and perceived technological impacts can further support TA activities.
The Vice-president for Research at Georgia Tech asks me to benchmark this university's SOFC research against the leading American universities for a presentation this noon.
An auxiliary search is run on a U s. Department of energy R&d projects database for these four universities.
He notes that we have left out a key Georgia Tech SOFC researcher who leads many sponsored research projects on
changing tools, changing roles, Information Outlook 5 (3)( 2001) 24 30.5 A l. Porter, A. Kongthon, J.-C. Lu, Research profiling:
What You Need from Technology information Products, Research-Technology management, 2004 (Nov 8 H. de Bruijn, A l. Porter, The education of a technology policy analyst-to process management, Technology analysis and Strategic management 16 (2)( 2004
, Helsinki University of Technology, PO BOX 1100, FI-02015 TKK, Finland b Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Edificio Expo, C
binstitute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain In 2005, the Finnish Government
took a decision in principle on the structural development of the public research system. This decision spurred the two main funding agencies theacademy of Finland
Typically, these objectives include attempts (1) to prepare priorities in the research and innovation (R&i) system,
(2) to reorient the R&i system, (3) to demonstrate the vitality of this system, (4) to bring new actors to R&i debates,
or (5) to foster new networks (Georghiou and Keenan 2006). Ultimately, many of these objectives seek to strengthen the efficacy of innovation activities,
for instance by improving the stakeholders'understanding of the R&i system or by fostering collaboration processes within innovation networks (cf.
Section 3 describes the methodological design, execution and main results of Finnsight and reports subsequent policy developments in the R&i system.
characterised by numerous activities that have been initiated by several key actors of the R&i system (see, e g.
when the Government took a decision in principle on the structural development of the public research system at large.
In this decision, the Government emphasised that the research system is to be developed in its entirety, with the aim of improving the quality and relevance of research and development activities.
The Government also noted that key measures towards this end will include the establishment of shared priorities, the strengthennin of the national and international profile of research organisations,
and the establishment of selective decision processes based on foresight. Furthermore, this decision obliged the Academy of Finland2
and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation3 (Tekes) to deepen their collaboration in the context of funding activities and other R&i instruments,
with the aim of enhancing the impacts of public R&i funding and facilitating the formation of larger research units.
and Technology policy Council of Finland (STPC) should develop by the end June 2006 a national strategy for establishing Strategic Centres of Excellence in Research and Innovation.
These two main funding agencies for basic and applied technological research (which had annual funding appropriation of some¤297 million and¤527 million in 2008,
because they had had engaged not in joint consultative foresight activities except within specific research programs (see, e g. Salo and Salmenkaita 2002.
further to the recognittio that globalisation is a major determinant of the development of R&i systems.
so that it supported the other panels by collecting statistical data on R&i systems and economic forecasts.
Because Finnsight was a foresight process of two funding agencies with different but complemenntar roles in the R&i system,
(of key concern to Tekes) in the R&i system. This, together with the large differences in the fundiin processes of these funding agencies,
or a development that could contribute to the realisation of changes with significant implications for future R&i activities.
and separate analysis of its significance and impacts (why is this driving force relevant to R&i policy and R&i activities?.
or apply knowledge that is based on R&i activities and (2) and, by doing so, seek to respond to societal and industrial needs.
and (ii) the significance of the factor (i e. how significant was this driving force for future R&i activities?.
and focus areas of competences that it deemed central for the development of the R&i system.
the panels also presented their thoughts as to how the focus areas might be developed best through R&i policy measures or other actions.
including many influential R&i policy makers. Further to the publication of the reports Finnsight received quite a bit of media attention,
d) Subsequent policy developments Because foresight is a highly systemic instrument with close linkages to other policy processes that contribute to the development of the R&i system,
These centres which are organised as nonprofit seeking companies owned by the state, research institutes, universities and private companies will establish new ways of allocating resources to research activities,
in accordance with research plans that are jointly agreed upon by companies, universities and research institutes, with the aim of fostering research that will offer possibilities for the commercial deployment of results within 5 10 years.
universities, research organisations. By June 2009, six strategic centres have started their operations (i e. energy and environment;
the results of Finnsight were published at an opportune moment for the development of the strategic research plans for these centres.
South korea and Canada and by the European commission. 8 One of the objectives of Finnsight was that it should encourage other actors of the R&i system to initiate foresight activities.
and 88%thought that Finnsight will be important to the development of the Finnish R&i system.
while informative use refers to the development of an improved shared understanding of the R&i system
For instance, Finnsight synthesised consensual information about overarchiin developments that were relevant to many organisations in the R&i system (e g. universities, industrial federations, private enterprises.
which are often easier to debate than thematic R&d issues about which all panel members do not have equal expertise.
Totti Könnölä is a scientific officer at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Seville, Spain.
and the UK Research councils in that it allocates funding to high-quality basic research based on the evaluation of submitted research proposal.
See http://www. aka. fi/en-gb/A/for details. 3. Tekes provides project-oriented funding to universities, polytechnics, research institutions and industrial firms,
(which has been renamed as the Research and Innovation policy Council as of January 2009) is to assist the Government and its ministries by addressing, for instance,
experiences from the preparation of an international research program. Technological forecasting and Social Change 75, no. 4: 483 95.
analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organization. Technological Analysis & Strategic management 21, no. 3: 381 405.
Research foresight: priority-setting in science. London: Pinter. Rask, M. 2008. Foresight balancing between increasing variety and productive convergence.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011