Technology analysis (TA) and risk assessment methodologies are discussed in the light of the empirical material gathered from projects performed at VTT.
Foresight methodology Technology assessment Technology analysis Risk assessment Risk analysis Roadmapping 1. Introduction The practices in foresight, technology assessment and industrial risk assessment processes are in many ways parallel.
Foresight exercises, in turn, usually identify the possible future developments, driving forces, emerging technologies, barriers, threats and opportunities related to a broader socio-techno-economic system.
Technology assessment (TA) has ingredients of both of these approaches the main emphasis being balanced in evaluation of the short-and long-term impacts of new technologies.
All these future-oriented approaches try to illustrate and manage the future in an explicit and systematic way by identifying,
and its multidisciplinary technology foresight team, consisting of researchers with experience on foresight, technology assessment and risk assessment studies,
as well as societal embedding of technological and social innovations. The multiple backgrounds of the team widen the knowledge base,
in order to develop more proactive and systemic risk assessment that covers even new types of emerging risks (incl. risks related to new technologies and their introduction to the market).
On the other hand, the development of foresight and technology assessment methodologies is expected to benefit from the experiences of the industrial risk assessment tradition:
The authors'involvement in technology assessments studies commissioned by the Parliament of Finland, development of proactive risk assessment methodologies for different corporate risk management purposes (identiffyin the vulnerability of corporate and process actions, managing the risks in occupational, industrial and environmental safety, managing business risks, etc.),
and new technologies provide some further insights that contribute to the paper. The paper examines the prerequisites of and the ways in
technology forecasting and technology assessment 1. As noted in Könnölä et al. 2, the gradual paradigm shift in the innovation research
and technology oriented forecasstin practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight approaches 3. Also the R&d functions are moving from the basic science
and technology push driven innovation processes to the systemic innovations that emerge close to the market 4. Consequently,
and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system,
and Institute of Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) have launched a FOR-LEARN On-line Foresight guide developed during the project FOR-LEARN in 6th Framework programme project of the European commission.
Among other methods and practices in the field are constructive technology assessment discursive technology assessment, consensus conferences, brainstorming, expert workshops, Delphi questionnaires and expert Fig. 1. Popper's diamond 9. 1165 R. Koivisto et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 interviews. Megatrends and weak signals are also the crucial targets of the examination:
A paradigm shift and interesting methodological developments are seen for Technology assessment too: TA originally emerged to balance power between the legislative and executive branches of government,
1 but has moved increasingly towards providing useful knowledge for actively shaping technology. Consequently, concepts such as participatory technology assessment, construuctiv technology assessment, discursive TA,
and consensus conferences have emerged, and both technology-driven and problem-driven approaches are taken 1. It is stressed also that it is important to see technology as part of a whole technological and societal system 11.
The scope and context of the analysis, as well as the examination of the technology, its impacts and related policy,
are all important in this respect. This means, for instance, studying whether the assessed technology does the job better than the previous methods,
whether it fits into the company and/or the society, and whether it has impacts or side-effects.
It is also crucial to study what the future might be, will the technology be needed usable
and also in the future. Consideration of opinions, attitudes, fears, interests and hopes may then be as important as consideration of clear facts.
when analysing new technologies and the impacts of their market introduction. In this way TA can also play a more significant role in pushing the development in a useful or wanted direction. 2. 2 Risk assessment methodologies in industrial safety As noted in the previous Section 2. 1,
and space technology in the 1960s 13. These fields are renowned for their complicated systems, where possible accidents may have far-reaching consequences.
A systematic and Fig. 2. A systemic framework for methods 10.1 For instance, the TA studies carried out by the US Office of Technology (OTA) in 1974 1995 primarily served to inform Congress
when technology-related legislative policy options were considered. 1166 R. Koivisto et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 analytic way to assess
Instead of components, resilience engineering emphasises the meaning of practices, events and actions in the process 27.
As in resilience engineering, the dominant normative safety/risk management strategy is replaced by a natural or adaptive strategy in the new paradigm of risk management.
It is emphasised also that new market developments, technologies, threats and vulnerabilities are emerging and that they require proactive anticipation of the future worlds.
economics and technology, applying big amount of creative brainstorming approaches ending to two potential scenarios.
the process, the technology, people, the environment and so on should be known as fully as possible. The project states that a good modelling tool would help to model the future interdependencies supported by an integration of the scenario work and the systematic risk assessment. 3. 2. Managing opportunities,
and methods for companies in order to support the decision making related to introducing existing technologies into new markets, development of new technologies for existing markets,
or creation of new technologies in new markets. INNORISK project aims at applying Back-pocket roadmap 30 (also called Agile Roadmap), SWOT analysis 31,32 and IBM's Signpost methodology tools together with Potential Problem/Opportunity (Risk analysis
a medium-size company offering control systems for high-tech companies, a medium-size technology company and a large-size technology company. 2 The back-pocket roadmap starts
by defining the state-of-the-art of the markets, the existing technology or know-how, and the existing offering in the markets,
In the medium-size technology company a roadmap of the offering of the company in the future was done
which have political, ecological, social, technological and economical effects in society. 3. 4. Positioning the projects according to some important dimensions Könnölä et al.
but it is expressed not normally in engineer-style descriptions as in Box 1 2. Instrumental vs. informative outcomes o Instrumental outcomes refer to the use of foresight to support the specific foreseen decision making situation,
such as those that nanotechnologies, population aging, or climate change will pose to the society. In addition, business, policy making and the whole broad spectrum of decision making call for future-oriented technology analysis as well as risk assessment.
In some way the technology assessment is close to risk assessment methods, but the scope might still be vaguer than in risk assessment processes in industrial applications.
IRRIIS and CES especially reveal the gap between the future-oriented analysis and the technological system stressed risk assessment processes.
In both technology and risk assessment this is made by changing mindsets, building trust among actors and developing better preparedness for the change,
When the contribution of FTA is emphasized on revealing technological changes and their impacts in the future, the contribution from other areas is needed also.
Technology analysis & Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.3 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innov.
To identify possible future developments, driving forces, emerging technologies, barriers, threats and opportunities related to a broader socio-technoeconnomi system.
SWOT analysis, benchmarking, expert panels (new knowledge creation) Technology roadmaps, backcasting, narrative scenarios (visions of the future) Constructive technology assessment,
discursive technology assessment, consensus conferences, brainstorming, expert workshops and interviews Development and future expectations of the approach New approaches like inherent safety and resilience engineering address the complex nature of industrial processes.
and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards broader concerns including the whole innovation process with its environmental, social and economic perspectives.
Foresight for Europe, Final Report of the High level Expert Group for the European commission, April 24, 2002, European commission, Brussels, 2002.6 A. Eerola, E. Väyrynen, Developing technology forecasting and technology assessment
10 O.,Saritas, Systems thinking for Foresight, Ph d. Thesis, PREST, Manchester Business school, University of Manchester, 2006.11 E. Braun, Technology in context.
Technology assessment for managers, Routledge, London, 1998.12 R. Fairman, C. D. Mead, P. W. Williams, Environmental risk assessment approaches, experience and information sources, European Environment
Risk analysis of Technological Systems, Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.21 Center for Chemical process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed. AICHE, New york, USA, 1992
Resilience Engineering. Concepts and Precepts, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire, 2006, pp. 9 17,2006. 28 T. Uusitalo, R. Koivisto and W. Schmit, Proactive risk assessment of critical infrastructures.
, T. Luoma, S. Toivonen, Managing uncertainty in the front end of radical innovation development, Proc. of IAMOT 2007 16th International Conference on Management of Technology, May 13 17,2007, Florida
, USA, International Association for the Management of Technology, 2007, pp. 1306 1324.36 T. Luoma, J. Paasi, H. Nordlund.
and gives courses in Lappeenranta University of Technology. Dr. Nina Wessberg is Senior Research scientist at VTT.
She graduated in environmental engineering (M. Sc. 1996) and in environmental policy (M. Sc. 1997, Lic.
In 2007 she entered VTT's Technology foresight and technology assessment team. Dr. Annele Eerola is Senior Research scientist and Deputy Technology manager of the knowledge centre‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT.
Her research is focused in the processes of producing and using future-oriented expert information, including the links between foresight knowledge, corporate strategy and innovation policy.
She graduated in Helsinki University of Technology and holds a Phd from Helsinki Swedish School of economics and Business administration
and Team Leader of Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT. His research is focused on technology foresight, technological transformation of societies, innovation systems and economic geography.
He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland. Dr. Sirkku Kivisaari works as Senior Research scientist in VTT.
and Technology assessment team at VTT. His main focuses of interests are commercializing environmental technologies and sustainable development.
He holds Master's degree in both Marketing and Process engineering from the University of Oulu, Finland.
These frontiers include the exploration and/or the reexamination of (a) Potential for integrating new technology with futures research methods,
New technologies; Decision making; Uncertainty; Nonlinear systems; Futures methodology issues 1. Introduction There are many methods and approaches to the study of the future.
and technological change, but also the methodological approaches used in their analysis vary greatly. There are few attempts to aggregate futures data
if addressed, may improve the quality of the enterprise 1. 2. Integrating new technology with futures research methods New technologies carry great potential for improving
Furthermore, new technologies such as wireless Internet, knowledge visualization software, and improved computer translation will allow more international foresight activities to build collective intelligence through participatory feedback systems far more complex than the current futures research methods.
The examples mentioned above represent only a small part of the immense potential of new technology in futures research.
and the creation of credible indices of progress across countries, companies and groups with common assumptions to measure progress. 3. Reducing the domain of the unknowable It is hard to imagine the consequences of a new breakthrough before it occurs.
because the breakthrough that makes them feasible has not been demonstrated or even postulated yet. Some of these undiscoverable events may turn out to be the most important aspects of the future.
Or, more importantly, how do breakthroughs really happen and can they be anticipated, if not individually, at least categorically?
The role of the technology barometer in assessing the performance of the national innovation system Torsti Loikkanen a,,
Besides technological development decision-makers need all-inclusive knowledge of future developments of society, economy and impacts of science and technology.
The article presents the background, methodology and results of technology barometer, discusses its impacts on national discussion,
Technology barometerwas developed in order tomeasure the scientific technological and socioeconomic state and development level of the nation and formaking related comparative analysis to other nations.
The Finnish association of graduate engineers developed a technology barometer in collaboration with VTT Innovation studies during 2002 2003. The first technology barometer was published in 2004
and since then that barometer has been repeated twice in 2005 and 2007 3 7. The plan is to publish a barometer once in every two to three years.
The content of the technology barometer will be developed further in appropriate ways, however, without jeopardizing its comparative nature
and methodology Technology barometer is a societal indicator instrument with a strong emphasis on the innovation environment.
The purpose of a technology barometer is to give data of how favorable and competitive the Finnish innovation environment is assessed to be now and in the future.
In technology barometer this challenge is solved by dividing the exercise first into a comparison of the performance of the Finnish innovation system with selected nations on a basis of available international indicators
and second, to a technology barometer based on a survey study of the visions and attitudes of relevant national key actor and interest groups.
2. Technology barometer is based on the studies of the dynamic evolution of various development stages of a modern society after the industrialized development stage,
The technology barometer instrument utilizes the concepts developed by contemporary social scientists and innovation theorists, such as Bell 8
For example, the Japanese futurist Yoneji Masuda and the American sociologist Daniel Bell have stated that the essential dimensions of a new society would be seen in the emerging service economy, the role of theoretical knowledge, and technology development.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 The theoretical framework of technology barometer is based on various economic development stages since the first barometer exercise in 2004.
The indicators of technology barometer are structured correspondingly among different development stages of a modern society, from an information society into a knowledge society and from the knowledge society stage towards a knowledgevaalu society and towards the society fulfilling the requirements of sustainable development.
the technology barometer consists of four components, each containing three indicators (Fig. 1). In the information society,
In the technology barometer, the definition of an information society is focused around the investments in human and intellectual capital,
and the crucial element in production, with information and communication technologies comprehensively supporting interaction, the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge between individuals, businesses and other communities, plus the provision and accessibility of services.
In technology barometer, the indicators of knowledge society assess the gearing of the human and intellectual capital investments towards science and technology
the applications of information and communications technologies, and the outcomes of these investments as R&d productivity.
In the knowledge-value society, innovation, technology development, economic regeneration, openness to new ideas, and their active exploitation, are all inherent elements contributing to the basic values and culture of the society.
In addition to the three development phases of a modern society, technology barometer considers sustainable development as a fourth object of analysis,
The technology barometer measures the objectives of sustainable development by three indicator entities social cohesion in the society in question, environmental protection actions taken by businesses and authorities,
In conclusion, an indicator study of the technology barometer comprises 12 sub-indicators providing an index-type key value indicating the state of technology at a given time.
The development of an appropriate content, scope and structure of the technology barometer, as described above, involved a series of expert panels of the TEK, VTT and innovation policy experts.
and related construction of composite indicators 1. Methodological issues need to be addressed transparently prior to the construction and use of Fig. 1. Internal structure of technology barometer. 1179 T. Loikkanen et al./
In the technology barometer the computational procedure is as follows. Each partial area is measured by using a combined indicator
Techno-scientific competence (pages 17 19 in Technology barometer 2007,7) includes the demographic group of people aged 25 64 with higher education qualifications, the share of new graduates in techno
the share of middle-level and high-level technology fields in the labour force, the labour force share of competence-intensive services and researchers in the total labour force.
According to this index figure Finland rates as second after Sweden in Technology barometer 2007. In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B
). Besides the indicator-based comparative analysis the technology barometer includes a forward-looking survey of future expectations of relevant target groups.
The survey is based on a questionnaire directed to four relevant target groups, i e. the members of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, young people studying at the senior secondary school level, political decision-makers and business decision-makers.
and innovation performance of the nation. 3. Results of technology barometer 3. 1. Indicator-based comparison Statistical indicators collected from the eight countries through OECD
In the first three implementation rounds of technology barometer all reference group countries appear to have specific profiles of their own with strong characteristic features.
7. The synthesis paints a picture of the country's progress in each indicator of two recent technology barometers.
Compared to the previous indicator studies (Technology barometer 2004 and 2005 positive development was observed in entrepreneurship and openness to internationalism. 1180 T. Loikkanen et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 3. 2. Survey study of future visions In addition to indicator-based comparison the technology barometer instrument includes a survey about people's expectations regarding the future development trends.
altogether Fig. 3. Positioning Finland in technology barometer 2007: Figure sets out Finland's above-average or below-average rating in comparison to the reference group (the y axis),
The exact questions and formulations used can be found in the full barometer report 7. The purpose of the survey is to cast light onto the respondents'valuations regarding technology, perception about current state of affairs,
The second part depicts the respondent groups'assessments of Finnish research activities, the prevailing state of technology development and various societal institutions,
and related indicators are the level of investment, entrepreneurial activity and the impact of technology development on the quality of life.
According to the results, the Finnish politicians are consistently more optimistic than professional engineers or company executives about the country's techno-economic development.
and technology will be followed increasingly through means of interactive, instantly updated electronic media. The positive news here is that these areas continue to attract young people.
like the idea of including interactive and mobile media skills to science education curriculum at the elementary level. 3. 3. Synthesizing discussion Each technology barometer consists of concluding discussions of certain topical issues
Accordingly technology barometer 2007 accentuated the following three crosscutting themes: the changing role of knowledge-intensive work, innovations and business,
in basic technologies and business thinking alike, so as to generate product concepts with increasing initiative and courage.
science and technology will be followed increasingly by means of interactive, instantly updated media such as the Internet and popular TV programmes of science and technology. 4. Conclusions Despite the inevitable methodological challenges,
the technology barometer has proven to be capable of casting additional light on bottlenecks and problem areas within the national innovation environment in Finland.
Technology barometer provides a vast amount of processed and organized information for further analyses and its results can be utilized as an aid and support for long-term decisions concerning science, technology, innovation and education.
Each of the three barometer rounds, and especially the followed media discussion with a broad coverage,
has generated a vivid national discussion of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future directions of the Finnish economy and innovation system.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 most notably in terms of social needs and innovation policy interest, for the kinds of insights that the technology barometer exercise can deliver.
Because the technology barometer is an initiative of The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK), a professional and labour market organization with about 70,000 members,
Section 4. 1 draws conclusions of the experiences and observable impacts of technology barometer as an instrument supporting innovation policy-making
and Section 4. 2 discusses further development perspectives of the barometer in the future. 4. 1. Results of barometer support innovation policy-making One of the strategic aims of technology barometer exercise is to provide guidance on technologies and actions
Technology barometer aims at a contribution to related national discussion. Fromthe policy-makers'point of viewthere is a clear demand for an instrument providingwell argued,
and synthesizing it into meaningful conclusions remain among the key tasks in technology barometer exercises. These tasks are also under continuous refinement and fine-tuning.
The technology barometer instrument, which is a combination of social and economic scientific methods, calls for a high transparency of the methods used as well as transparency of all the utilized data.
Wide interest in the technology barometer is indicated e g. by numerous articles in newspapers and professional journals.
and publish technology barometer at appropriate intervals of two or three years. The precise timing of barometer procedure depends
and will be taken into account also in the further development of the structure and content of technology barometer.
Moreover, the process of developing Finnish national strategic centres for science, technology and innovation is underway in the technology fields with future importance for businesses and the society.
and survey studies of technology barometer. The further development of barometer to respond to the above mentioned challenges is already in process.
What future development possibilities does the technology barometer instrument offer? Technology barometer is going to be developed towards an instrument that analyzes innovation systems as far-reaching socioeconomic technical complexes.
In order to respond to the systemic challenges of the innovation policy environment, there is also a need to increase the proactive and future-oriented elements in technology barometer.
More future-oriented evaluative schemes and templates are needed in order to grasp and understand the wider systemic challenges of the innovation practices.
) Employment Index (Storrie and Bjurek) Innovation/technology Summary Innovation Index (EC) Networked Readiness Index (CID) National Innovation Capacity Index (Porter and Stern) Investment
in Knowledge-based Economy (EC) Performance in Knowledge-based Economy (EC) Technology Achievement Index (UN) General Indicator of Science and Technology (NISTEP) Information and Communications technologies
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Appendix B. Technology barometer 2007 Technology instrument for measuring citizens'attitudes and the nation's orientation towards a knowledge-based
3. 2. Knowledge society development 3. 2. 1. Investment in research and product development 3. 2. 2. Information and communication technologies ICT expenditure The use of information
and communication technologies ecommerce 3. 2. 3. Application of new knowledge 3. 3. Innovative society 3. 3. 1. Understanding of knowledge
. Views concerning scientific-and-technical institutions and organizations 4. 3. 3. Views regarding the roles of knowledge and technology in Finnish society
4. 4. Innovative society 4. 4. 1. Investments and entrepreneurial activeness 4. 4. 2. Potential effects of the development of technology on the quality of life 4. 5
. Sustainable development 4. 5. 1. Factors threatening the environment 4. 5. 2. The state of the environment and the actions of the authorities Appendices Content of the Technology barometer Key results Competence and knowledge
, Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK ry, Artprint Oy, Helsinki, 2004.4 M. Naumanen, Technology barometer, The Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, Painomerkki Oy, Helsinki, 2004.5 M. Naumanen
Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK, Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, 2007.7 O. Lehtoranta, P. Pesonen, T. Ahlqvist, E. Mononen, T. Loikkanen, Technology barometer 2007
His recent research work is related to the rationales of innovation policy, foresight of technologies (e g. transition towards sustainable energy systems), intellectual property rights,
and Team Leader of Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT. His research is focused on technology foresight
technological transformation of societies, innovation systems and economic geography. He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland.
Pekka Pellinen is the Head of the Technology policy Department of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK. He, as well as his background organization is maintaining a sustained effort in developing new instruments for informed action for policy-makers.
Pellinen holds A m. Sc. in Engineering. 1186 T. Loikkanen et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186
b German Federal Ministry for Research and Education, BMBF, Germany c Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering, Germany d Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany
The future fields are all crosscutting issues based on science and technology. All of them are specifically knowledge dynamic fields. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
was conducted by a consortium comprising the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research (Fraunhofer ISI) and the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (Fraunhofer IAO).
Other institutions like the Technical University of Berlin, the Institute for Nanotechnology (INT) of the Research centre Karlsruhe, the RWTH Aachen, the Austrian Research centres Gmbh (ARC), Systems Research Division Dept
. of Technology policy, the Manufuture Secretariat Germany of the German Verband deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbauer (VDMA) supported the approach.
Even as follow-up of the High-tech Strategy of the government 2, administrated in the same ministry,
1) Identification of new focuses in research and technology 2) Designation of areas for crosscutting activities 3) Exploration of fields for strategic partnerships 4) Derivation of priority activity lines
and technology and was broadened to look into the future of the next 10 to 15 years and even further.
latest developments in various technological-scientific subject areas were analysed, consolidated and processed in order to attain a reliable description of the international state-of-the-art.
For the monitoring process, an international panel of well-known and acknowledged experts who have an overview in their fields were asked about the current state and new developments in research and technology.
and interviewed in order to find the most promising topics in research and technology for the next 10 to 15 years or even further in the future.
Especially the online survey which had the function of focussing the topics as well as an assessment function is described in more detail (Fig. 3). 3. 1. Starting phase of the process The process started with 14 broader topic fields that were derived from the German High-tech Strategy 2,
these fields were selected as starting points to search for new topics in science and technology, at first at the national level, later on internationally.
1. Life sciences and biotechnology 2. Information and communication technology 3. Materials and their production processes 4. Nanotechnology 5. Optics/photonics/optoelectronics 6. Industrial production processes
(automation, robotics, mechanical engineering, process engineering etc.)7. Health research and medicine 8. Infrastructure technology, urbanisation and environmental development 9. Environmental protection technology and sustainable development 10.
Energy supply and consumption (generation, storage, transfer etc. 11. Mobility: transport and traffic technology, mobility, logistics (land, water, air, space) 12.
Cognitive sciences and neuroscience 13. Systems and complexity analysis (including research on technological and scientific convergence;
security research) 14. Services Science In a first workshop with 110 participants in November 2007, these 14 thematic fields were discussed with respect to emerging topics
First future science and technology trends were mentioned and documented in mind maps 12. In order to address crosscutting issues (objective no. 2 of the whole process
and new developments in science and technology or long-term research questions were described at these crossroads. These crosscutting areas were additional starting points for searches.
but with science and technology push topics. Therefore, the criteria to be matched incorporated some of the demand aspects
and technology landscape are really relevant and if theymeet the criteria of the process. In order to keep it simple and user-friendly,
and technology are already receiving sufficient support, and solutions are on the way or better: the topics are not new,
technological innovations that are linked directly to human beings (inside and outside of the body) need new technologies on the one hand,
and use of new living beings with new properties by integrating artificial systems 29 Hydrogen technology systems 28 Research on illnesses caused by lifestyle 27 Affective Computing 26
which already started in the current context of the High-tech Strategy 2 (www. bmbf. de).
and in science and technology with a longer-term view and codifying this knowledge in reports for BMBF contributes directly to the first two objectives of the process (objectives no. 1 and 2). It is expected that policy implementation will be facilitated by this information, by defining strategic partnerships and recommendations,
because experts in the broader sense were the persons who knew about the details in science and technology.
The current BMBF Foresight process is about science and technology it needs experts who are able to understand
and were focused on results that are within the limits of BMBF reach and responsibility (science and technology).
but stress science and technology because other topics may not be implemented directly by a BMBF. Therefore, those topics which are not directly BMBF topics are handed over to others by raising their awareness.
, Science and Technology (MEXT), in: National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Future science and Technology
in Japan, Delphi Report) Report no. 97, NISTEP, Tôkyô, 2005.5 Science and Technology foresight Center, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), in:
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kyûsoku ni hattenshitsutsu aru kenkyû ryûiki chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Study on Rapidlydevellopin Research area
) Report no. 95, NISTEP, Tôkyô, 2005.6 Science and Technology foresight Center, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), in:
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey, Needs Survey
) Report no. 94, NISTEP, Tôkyô, 2005.7 O. Kuusi, E. Hiltunen, H. Linturi, Heikot tulevaisuussignaalit Delfoi tutkimus (Weak signals a Delphi study), Futura, vol. 2
new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.17 Bundesministerium für Forschung und
Technologie (Federal Ministry for Research and Technology, BMFT (Ed.),Deutscher Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (German Delphi Report on the Development
of Science and Technology), Bonn, 1993.18 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, Chr. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management, Special issue FTA Seminar 2006,2008, pp. 369 387.19 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight:
, Future-oriented technology analysis as a Driver of strategy and Policy, Technology analysis & Strategic management, vol. 20,2008, pp. 78 83,1. 21 K. Cuhls, Changes in conducting foresight in Japan, in:
Institutional and Technological change in Japan's Economy, Routledge, London, 2005.1196 K. Cuhls et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 22 P. Warnke, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument:
learning from science and technology studies, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds.
new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.30 Science and Technology foresight Center, Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), in: National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Comprehensive analysis of Science and Technology Benchmarking and Foresight report no. 99, Tôkyô:
NISTEP (English short version), 2005.31 L. Georghiou, et al. The Handbook of Technology foresight, Concepts and Practice, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, 2008.32 S. Kuhlmann, et al.
Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Karlsruhe, 1999.
Kerstin Cuhls is coordinator of the business area Foresight and Futures research in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
Walter Ganz is director and member of the Leading Circle of the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO) in Stuttgart, Germany.
Philine Warnke is scientific project manager in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
Before, she worked as senior researcher in the area of foresight for the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European commission (JRC-IPTS.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011