Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1t 3jh, UK Technology analysis & Strategic management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
, 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
Ahti Salo, Ville Brummer & Totti Könnölä (2009) Axes of balance in foresight reflections from Finnsight 2015, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 987-1001, DOI:
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www. tandfonline. com/page/termsanndconditions Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Technology analysis & Strategic management Vol. 21
of Technology, PO BOX 1100, FI-02015 TKK, Finland; 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
which served to inform albeit indirectly the development of the national strategy and the attendant implementation of several Strategic Centres of Excellence in Science and Technology.
the Finnish Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) has catalysed extensive consultation processes with researchers and industrialists in its strategy developmmen (Salo and Salmenkaita 2002;
and technology programs (cf. Salo 2001; Salmenkaita and Salo 2002. This situation changed in April 2005
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.
words, exemplifyyin relevant scientific disciplines and associated technologies, as well as some domains of their potential application in industry and society.
and to assist in the explorattio of future developments and their implications for scientific and technological competences.
or (3) anticipated scientific and technological achievements. A focus area of competence was defined as a community of collaborating actors that (1) create
they elaborated the underpinning scientific and technological bases, relations to emerging societal and industrial needs, with illustrations of future possibilities by way of concrete manifestations (such as innovatiions) Often,
and substance abuse research Home care and telecare technologies 4. Environment and energy Operation of ecosystems Water systems and water cleaning technologies Smart sensors and new energy conversion and storage
technologies 5. Infrastructure and security Environmental know-how and technology Logistic know-how and security of supply management Integration know-how 6. Bio-expertise and bio-society Complete use of renewable
Management and modelling of biological knowledge 7. Information and communications Sensor technology applications Data mining, analysis, management and retrieval Bio-information technology 8. Understanding and human interaction Multicultural
Technology and Innovation7 in fields that are important to the future of Finnish society and business and industry.
metal products and mechanical engineering; the forest cluster; health and well-being; and information and communication industry and services;
Technology and Innovation was an important part. This opportune timing gave possibilities for instrumental use,
Notes on contributors Ahti Salo is a professor at the Systems analysis Laboratory of the Helsinki University of Technology.
Ville Brummer is a researcher at the Systems analysis Laboratory of the Helsinki University of Technology.
Totti Könnölä is a scientific officer at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Seville, Spain.
with the aim of promoting technological breakthroughs and innovations in all industrial sectors and services. See http://www. tekes. fi/en/community/Home/351/Home/473 for details. 4. The funding decisions of the Academy of Finland are taken by external scholars (usually university professors) who serve on its councils
Twelve lessons drawn from‘Key technologies 2005',The french technology foresight exercise. Journal of Forecasting 22, nos. 2 3: 161 77.
technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter. Eriksson, E. A. and K. M. Weber. 2008. Adaptive foresight:
a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological forecasting and Social Change 74, no. 4: 413 32. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 1001 Irvine, J,
Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience. Journal of Forecasting 22, no. 2 3: 129 60.
Technological Analysis & Strategic management 21, no. 3: 381 405. Martin, B. R, . and J. Irvine. 1989.
Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology analysis and Strategic management 14, no. 2: 183 200.
Salo, A. 2001. Incentives in technology foresight. International Journal of Technology management 21, no. 7: 694 710.
Salo, A, . and O. Kuusi. 2001. Developments in parliamentary technology assessment in Finland. Science and Public policy 28, no. 6: 453 64.
Salo, A, . and J.-P. Salmenkaita. 2002. Embedded foresight in RTD programs. International Journal of Technology
Policy and Management 2, no. 2: 167 93. Salo, A t. Könnölä, and M. Hjelt. 2004.
Science, technology, innovation. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. http://www. minedu. fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Tiede/tutkimus-ja innovaationeuvosto/TTN/julkaisut/liitteet/Review 2006. pdf?
Introduction From priority-setting to societal challenges in future-oriented technology analysis Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) is derived a term from a collective description given to the range of technology-oriented forecasting methods and practices by a group of futures researchers and practitioners
1. Called‘‘technology futures analysis''in its original form, the central aim was to bring into a single frame a family of methods
many of these methods have far wider application in futures work than in the domain of technology
and it is pertinent to ask why there should be a particular focus on technology. While this is a powerful undercurrent in the broader discourse of futures work it does not elsewhere form the central focus.
''3. On its own perhaps not but technology is rarely absent among drivers; as Linstone argued in the context of considering long waves,
‘‘Technology will play as significant a role in the 21st century as it did in the 20th''4. From the conceptual ground of the paper,
a biennial conference series developed, hosted by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) of the European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre.
but the need to recognise the traditions of technology assessment, forecasting and other dimensions of futures studies remains important
However, they argue that this engagement has sometimes been perceived too narrowly as being synonymous with the identification of broad technological priorities for investment.
networking and visionbuillding not across the broad front of technological options but within specific sectors.
These roles are identifying promising technological pathways, engaging relevant stakeholders and creating common visions that move into action.
and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards recognition of broader concerns encompassing the entire innovation system including societal perspectives.
References 1 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (2004) 287 303, in press. 2 T. J. Gordon, J. C. Glenn (Eds.
Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Frauenhofer Institute, Systems and Innovation research, Karlsruhe, 1999.7 L. Mermet, T. Fuller, R. van der Helm, Reexamining
. Johnston, Future-oriented technology analysis as a driver of strategy and policy, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (2008) 267 269.11 M. Keenan, R. Barre',C. Cagnin, Future-oriented technology analysis:
I. Miles, Impacts and implications of future-oriented technology analysis for policy and decision making, Technology analysis & Strategic management 21 (2009) 915 916.13 T. Ko nno la, J. Smith, A. Eerola, Introduction
MBS, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9pl, UK Jennifer Cassingena Harper Malta Council for Science and Technology, Villa Bighi, Bighi, Kalkara
for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain c Fraunhofer-Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI
, Breslauer Straße 48,76139 Karlsruhe, Germany d CNAM, 292 rue Saint-martin, 75003 Paris, France e Dept of Science, Technology,
i) GM plants and (ii) Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. Hence, this research is expected to contribute improving the strategic processes of priority setting in technoinstittutiona arenas both on the national and international level.
first in the area of genetically modified plants and then for the domain of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. 2. Background and rationale 2. 1. Tailoring Foresight a revision During the last two decades the field of Foresight has developed a lot through practical experience
, technology assessment, transition management, evidence-based policy and academic disciplines such as Innovation studies and Science and Technology studies 2. A number of classifications have been developed distinguishing types of Foresight with respect to approach, context and purpose 3
5. Based on these insights, Foresight practitioners do now deploy hybrid methodological frameworks where different approaches serve different purposes in specific phases in order to tailor Foresight to each specific purpose and context.
Innovation studies have pointed out how the dynamics of innovation systems are structured by the nature of the governing technological regimes that in turn co-evolve with socioeconomic and institutional framework conditions.
At the same time sectoral and technology specific determinants (technological regimes) significantly structure companies'search processes and thereby shape the dynamics of knowledge production 11.
and programming calls at the European level encompass also the work carried out by the new European research Council (ERC) and by intermediary coordinating institutions like ERA NETS, European Technology platforms (ETPS) and Joint Technology initiatives (JTIS)
which develop scientific and technological road maps. Federating EU instruments like Networks of Excellence (Noes) and large facilities
Foresight activities are seen as functions not only to identify promising technological pathways but also to engage relevant stakeholders and create common visions into action 25,
Furthermore, Foresight processes are supposed to help designing new value networks that are based on the novel combinations of technologies, organisational partnerships and institutional arrangements.
e g. 35) may create pathdependdencie and locking-out alternative technological options 36. Here, Foresight can also contribute to the creative restructuring
%and the recent rate of growth of nanoscience has been near to 14%.%Convergence/divergence. In fields that are established (with a dominant design or in‘normal science'under a given paradigm),
As a third new element we suggest to broaden the analytical framework (originally designed for purely scientific environments) towards the realm of technological knowledge,
Extending the application of search regimes in the realm of technology does neither create special difficulties concerning the third dimension, complementarity.
It can be for instance through the use of facilities (e g. technological platform), or thanks to interdisciplinary or intersectoral cooperation (e g. research contracts between academia and industry).
Moreover, the combined analysis of scientific and technological knowledge brings a more original outcome in the sense that it provides an adequate framework for analysing researchers'coactivity,
and the technological network (formed by inventors) whose intensities reflect the institutional complementarity between industry and academia within a given techno-scientific area.
genetically modified plants and Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. For each domain, we will first characterise the institutional arrangement of the governance arenas and the knowledge configurations,
The European Technology platform (ETP)‘‘Plants for the Future''is a stakeholder forum for the plant sector,
‘‘Plants for the Future'',the above-mentioned European Technology platform is an example of coordinating institution for this collaboration.
Steering is done in an integrated manner through the Technology platform with industry as the dominant driving force.
and programming arena by a stronger institutional steering on EU level. 5. 2. The case of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies (N&n) Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies (N&n) are seen as the‘top-down'miniaturisation movement of three domains:
microelectronics, materials and biotechnologies and as their‘bottom-up'convergence at the nanoscale. To address field specificities for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies,
we will examine first institutional arrangements and later on Knowledge dynamics. 5. 2. 1. N&n: institutional arrangements Strategic orientation:
It displays explicitly among the EU policies one dedicated to Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. The European Technology platform for Nanoelectronics European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council (ENIAC) was launched in 2004 with the mission to bring together all leading players in the field
and to develop and implement a European vision validated by policy makers and governments. It has produced a Strategic research Agenda (SRA) created through the concerted efforts of experts from industry, academia,
One DG RTD service is specifically in charge of translating nano policy objectives into research programmes,‘‘Nano-and converging Sciences and Technologies''.
ENIAC is one among the few ETP to have been developed further in a Joint Technology initiatives (JTIS.
and technology development projects in Nanoelectronics, the nano JTI associates public bodies and funds (the European commission, Member States and Associated States) and private bodies funds through AENAS.
Nano excellence seems to be concentrated highly (role of‘technology platforms'to work at the nanoscale) in 200 clusters where Asia has a strong presence:
An example of the latter type is the Mona roadmap13 aiming at better integration between optics and nanotechnology.
Even though there are a number of strong technological visions around many of them lack richness on the societal side.
To sum up the analysis revealed two types of Foresight useful for underpinning the European research and innovation system in the area of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies:(
and for nanotechnology appears as an interesting way for releasing current tensions that block this field of research a strategic orientation that could fit in a grand challengesbaase R&i policy 18.
in the field of nanotechnology the need to foster the forming of new value networks around nano-products
Merging optics and nanotechnology A European roadmap for photonics and nanotechnologies 2005 2007. Exercise aimed to provide recommendations for EU R&d efforts as input for FP7 and Strategic research Agendas in two fields (Nanomaterials & Photonics.
Mona involved 300 experts with different backgrounds from industry and academia. Cf. http://www. ist-mona. org/about/roadmap. asp. 14 http://www. nanologue. net/.
. Brown, K. Konrad, H. van Lente, The sociology of expectation in science and technology, Technology analysis & Strategic management 18 (3/4)( 2006) 285 298.7 B. De
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.9 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight:
Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 2009.11 F. Malerba, L. Orsenigo, Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities, Industrial and Corporate Change 6 (1
, Research policy 6 (1)( 1977) 36 76.15 A. Rip, R. Kemp, Technological change, in: S. Rayner, E. L. Malone (Eds.
Technological change and Industrial Dynamics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, 2001.18 L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, Challenging Europe's Research Rationales for the European research area
Available from the Science and Technology studies Unit, University of York, UK, 2001.21 E. Grande, The state and interest groups in a framework of multilevel decision-making:
London/Dover, 1984.29 W. B. Arthur, Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock in by historical events, Economic Journal 99 (394)( 1989) 116 131.30 W. B. Arthur, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, University of Michigan Press
, Ann arbor, 1994.31 S. Jacobsson, A. Johnson, The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research, Energy Policy 28 (9)( 2000) 625 640.32 A. Salo, T. Gustafsson, R. Ramanathan, Multicriteria methods for Technology foresight, Journal
of Forecasting 22 (2 3)( 2003) 235 255.33 M. Keenan, Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level:
the case of nanotechnology, in: Presentation at the 2nd PRIME Indicators Conference on STI Indicators for Policy Addressing New Demands of Stakeholders, Oslo, 28 30,may 2008. 47 A. Bonaccorsi, The dynamics of science in the nano
Presentation at the PRIME Winter School on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Grenoble, 4 8 february, 2008.48 A. Bonaccorsi, G. Thoma, Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and Technology research
Policy 36 (6)( 2007) 813 831.49 A. Rip, H. te Kulve, Constructive technology assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios, 2008.50 A. Rip, Folk theories of nanotechnologists, Science
patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology, Nanoethics 1 (1)( 2007) 3 20.
and technology that defines today's business environment. For more than 25 years, scanning has played an essential role in SRIC-BI's
The inherent unpredictability of technology development and commercialization processes, legal and regulatory developments, and changes in cultural factors and 0040-1625/$-see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:
and technological environments is essential to maintaining the needed flexibility. Such monitoring of the external environment is the foundation of an open intelligence system.
and an acceleration of the advances in science and technology all are turning traditional hierarchical or linear markets, supply chains,
and technological forces. The most important tools for remaining afloat and thriving in the turbulence are a constant awareness of the changes going on around your organization
and technological environments. The data points can be events, developments, opinions, research findings, or products that participants believe to be early signals that portend significant changes.
Disruptive developments or technologies. Participating scanners cast their nets broadly to bring in signals of change from various domains,
Technology. The breadth of scope inherent in the diversity of the categories represents one of the most important strengths of the scanning process.
and technological environments. The scanning system captures and assembles the data points in the form of short abstracts,
chief engineer for the development of one of Toyota's recent concept cars, complains that young people today pay more attention to cell phones than to cars.
when making technology decisions may be an appropriate strategy. The abstract is valuable because it questions conventional wisdom
Examples include abstracts that speculate about currently gestating technologies with the potential eventually to have an impact similar in scope to that of the Internet in the past 20 years.
and technology to explore ad hoc wireless-mesh networks that allocate spectrum on the fly. The networks are self-organizing
Biotechnology and nanotechnology topics are continuing players in the abstract sets. Synthetic biology the prospect of engineering cellular processes to operate as bioreactors, labs in a cell,
or manufacturing mechanisms is one of the latest arrivals to the abstract sets. Cultural topics are of huge importance in the abstract set
computing, and sensing technologies are dramatically expanding the capabilities of and domains in which continuous-monitoring concepts can operate.
An awareness of such new capabilities serves as a jumping-off point for generating ideas for new technology-based products and services.
When abstracts on particular topics (such as wireless technologies or privacy concerns) constitute clusters that cross industry-domain categories (such as health
and government), the analysts know that the technology or topic will have widespread impact (see Fig. 3). The second part of the meeting consists of identifying the topics
K. M. Patton/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1082 1093 1089 backgrounds, from technology to specialties in consumer behavior, from engineering to anthropology,
Technology monitors! Strategy consultants! Principal consultants! Marketing and sales staff. Representation from a wide variety of academic and professional backgrounds is helpful as well.
and Technology, Villa Bighi, Bighi, Kalkara CSP 12, Malta 1. Introduction The predominant focus of foresight 1 is frequently national research policy and strategy,
The emergence of coordinating instruments such as technology platforms is normally crystallised around a technology roadmap; Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:
It seeks to show an evolution away from a traditional focus on broad-based technological priority setting to a muchmore focussed and adapted set of applications.
The most popular group is one we have called analysing the future potential of technologies. This reflects a type of foresight which preselects one
or more areas of science or technology and uses foresight approaches to assess their potential and the actions needed to take them forward.
and demand fir technology or innovation. These almost always make reference to market opportunities or societal demand.
and capacity building Priority setting for S&t Network building Supporting policy or strategy development Analysing the future potential of technologies Fig. 1. Analysis of objectives of 50 foresight exercises. 1 Thanks
In science and technology policy an OECD report identified three types of priorities 8: thematic priorities referring to fields of science and technology;
mission-oriented priorities referring to socioeconomic or technological goals; and functional priorities referring to characteristics of the science and innovation system.
In dealing with priorities it is difficult to separate the output from either the process that generates it or from the process by
The process is typically a broader sociopolitical interaction of supply side technology or science push with demand side Pull in an unstructured process the various interest groups press their case
In the simplest form, for example the US Critical technologies Program which ran from 1989 to 1998,
if technologies chosen by eminent experts participating as a small elite group. Normally the full appellation of foresight would be reserved for a process that went beyond this to involve a systematic consideration of socioeconomic and technical drivers
Later critical technologies exercises in Europe such as The french Key technologies Programme and the Czech Foresight exercise introduced these key foresight characteristics 9, 10.
Typical lists that emerge are at a high level of aggregation (ICT, biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc. or at one level down listing around 100 key technologies.
Functional priorities are normally far fewer in number and might typically concern resourcing (finance, human resources and infrastructure) for science,
These multidisciplinary and cross-business function programs are aimed at technology leaps in strategic areas. Projects are not the focus of detailed selection effort the primary issue is one of addressing broad technology goals
and programme portfolios to meet these targets. Research is organised into a modest number of specific programmes.
These programmes are defined in general around technologies (such as adhesives or semiconductors), or around broad areas of functionality()TD$FIG 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%FP6 FP5 FP4 FP3 FP2
Substantial effort is put into the preparation of technology landscaping or foresight documents as an input to the strategy process 17.
This process could be seen as analogous to the emergence of technology platforms in industry-led public programmes.
the CEE region has probably been focussed the most upon the‘‘critical technologies''style of foresight with prominent examples including successive Russian exercises 21,22
which sought to examine the future of‘‘Key Research actors''in the European research area encompassing civil society, researchers, small and medium enterprises, universities, research and technology organisations, multinational enterprises, national and regional governments 23.
A key contention behind this exercise was that‘‘current policies are excessively technology-centric and may miss crucial emerging attributes of research and research actors in the knowledge society''.
society and technology which may impact upon the business and its innovative activities. Rollwagen et al. describe this process in Deutsche bank which they summarise as‘‘Foresight explores
as firms become increasingly dependent on complementary or external sources of technology, formulation of strategy, previously an internal activity, must at least in part nowbe carried out in the public arena.
and technology that may feature in priorities exercises but rather involves the mastery or areas such as training,
but by interacting with universities, technological institutes, consulting companies, suppliers and even competitors. The type of deficiencies that innovation policy seeks to correct include lack of integration also at the level of the policy framework itself,
and a disconnection between the development and application of new technologies and the societal and business issues which are wanted by the public and their political representatives.
technological lock ins and an inability to engage in the kind of networks now recognised as the environment in
technological knowledge and/or the capabilities to innovate. This can be by means of grants, loans, fiscal incentives, consultancy support,
it is interesting to note that one of the most successful has evolved now into an ERA NET‘‘Wood Wisdom''dealing with the integration of forestry and wood material science and engineering.
and technology fields into regulatory foresight is not sufficient. Rather, it is argued that significant adjustments and developments are needed to the methodologies,
regulators of potential technological and/or socioeconomic situations which regulation may promote; and builders of clusters or platforms of the various kinds of linkages which can bind them together in future market and technology development. 5. Conclusion:
future for foresight in research and innovation policy Rationales for foresight activity have evolved in recent years to feature a range of research
J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 249 engineering major changes required in EU research and innovation policy in the coming years.
Disruptive role encouraging an emphasis on crisis or breakthrough events which can completely change the current status quo.
References 1 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (3)( 2004) 287 303.2 T. Kuwahara, K. Cuhls, L. Georghiou, Foresight in Japan, in:
the practice and its impacts, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 287 307.4 B. R. Martin, R. Johnston, Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system a review of recent
from trend based logics to open foresight, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 321 336.8 OECD, Choosing Priorities in Science and Technology, OECD, Paris, 1991.9 K
. Klusacek, Technology foresight in the Czech republic, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2004) 89 105.10 K. Klusacek, Key technologies for the Czech National research Programme, in:
Paper Presented at the UNIDO Technology foresight Summit, September, Budapest, 2007.11 T. L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Mcgraw hill, New york, 1980.12 Office of Science and Technology and PREST
London, May 1993.13 SQW/PREST 1994 Prioritisation Criteria, A Paper to the UK Technology foresight Steering Group. 14 M. Keenan, Identifying generic technologies at the national level:
) 471.17 R. Coombs, R. R. Ford, L. Georghiou, Generation and Selection of Successful Research projects, A Research Study for the Technology Strategy Forum, 2001.
Human and Societal Dynamics, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 92 109.22 A. Sokolov, Russian Critical technologies 2015, European foresight monitoring Network Brief, 79.
, S. Schneider, Improving the business impact of foresight, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 339.29 P. Becker, Corporate Foresight in Europe:
, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument learning from science and technology studies, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barre'(Eds.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011