The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology Petra Schaper-Rinkel AIT Austrian Institute of technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, A-1220 Vienna, Austria a r t i c l e
Received 24 july 2011 Received in revised form 7 july 2012 Accepted 3 august 2012 Available online 2 november 2012 This paper analyzes the role that different types of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
but rather on the longer-term interplay between the organizational settings in both countries and the future-oriented nanotechnology analysis. In countries such as the US and Germany, where FTA on nanotechnology were already underway in the late 1980s,
Especially the inter-organizational setting can be considered a crucial condition for maximizing the impact that participatory FTA can have in the future governance of nanotechnology. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A decade ago, the question addressed how to maximize the contribution of such technologies to economic innovation with the intention of enhancing competitiveness 1, 2. Today,
In the case of nanotechnology, a variety of FTA ACTIVITIES have been in use over the last quarter of a century to structure the field itself
8. More than ten years have passed since the U s. National science and Technology Council published its first vision for nanotechnology research
and then recognizing that the Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 E-mail address:
Schaper-Rinkel@ait. ac. at. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx. doi. org/10.1016/j. techfore
the field, its definition and its governance The Technical Committee 229 on Nanotechnologies of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) issued a definition of nanotechnology in 2010
which contains the same elements as those used over the last decades: nanotechnologies include understanding and controlling matter
and a fourth generation (starting in 2015) of heterogeneous molecular nanosystems, where molecules are envisioned as devices to build up engineered structures and architectures with fundamentally new functions 9. 2 The emergence,
Early and radical visions that shaped the field in the late 1980s were published by individual thinkers 17,18.
In the 1990s, studies mapping the field and technology assessment studies included actors and knowledge mainly from science and industry 1, 19 22.
10 (2008) 11 29. Indeed, it turns out there are strong analogies between nanotechnology and converging technologies,
& Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 As FTA is understood commonly as an umbrella term for a broad set of activities that facilitate decision-making and coordinated action,
In contrast to the US, the German government has launched several technology foresight processes in the last decade 33,34.
In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen since into oblivion.
Usually, two US visions are seen as the starting point of nanotechnology as an emerging technology. The early individual vision of Eric Drexler, who envisioned a distant future vision of molecular manufacturing in the late 1980s,
was the first. Inhis book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology 17, Drexler developed far reaching new ideas of the possibilities and risks of technologies on the nanoscale.
He envisioned molecular machines programmed by integrated nanocomputers to perform specific tasks and to create molecular machines capable of manipulating individual atoms
and his ideas became a disputed reference point in the debate around nanotechnology in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
35,36. 3 The second vision was presented to the broad public in 2000 by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative called Nanotechnology Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 22 3. 1
. Integrated vision-building and governance network-building in the US At the end of the 1990s, the US science policy community established an organizational structure around nanotechnologies
This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,
which included members of different government departments and agencies. 4 In 1999, the NSTC conducted a series of studies and published reports on the status of and trends in nanotechnologies.
and Development in The next Decade 1. Vision building at this stage was accompanied by early cooperation and coordination between and among agencies and departments of the federal government.
and instead focus on Feynman as the genius behind the origins of the field 11 (C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, science, technology & human values,(2007) 196 220).
41 (2011) 457 485). 4 Participating agencies included the Department of commerce (DOC), Department of Defence (DOD), Defence Advanced Research projects Agency (DARPA), Department of energy (DOE), Department of transportation
446 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 support nanotechnology education, research and development the fastest will thrive in the new millennium 1. These statements illustrate that the report
engineering and technology research and development from the approximately $255 million it spent in fiscal year 1999.1.
The NNI was announced a few months later. 5 In hindsight, the technology assessment activities and the vision building process served to link disperse organizations
In the years following the implementation of the NNI the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Technology (which succeeded the IWGN) called for the involvement of social scientists across the board 38
Since 2004, risk has become the subject of political concern as well as the subject of analysis. Public opinion about nanotechnology
In 2010, a follow-up report on the vision report of 1999, entitled Nanotechnology research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020 3 combined retrospective and future-oriented analysis documenting developments in nanotechnology from 2000 to 2010
and presented a vision for progress in nanotechnology from 2010 to 2020 3. Besides redefining the R&d goals for nanoscale science and engineering integration,
and presenting concepts of how to establish nanotechnology as a general-purpose technology in the next decade,
the presented vision for 2020 was conducted by involving a wider range of experts and stakeholders to generate broader knowledge than in 1999.
These experts and stakeholders came from industry from NGOS, from the physical and biological sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, economics, and philosophy.
The report included insights from US experts in the field, examinations of lessons learned, and integrated international perspectives collected through multinational workshops held in the US, Europe and Asia.
In comparison with the first vision generated prior to the establishment of the NNI in 1999/2000,
the new report written a decade later focuses more on governance and on concepts to involve
Another concept, highlighted in the report is real-time technology assessment, a research program to integrate natural science and engineering investigations with social science and policy research from the outset 44.
This concept also stems from the NNI6 and became a part of the vision for 2020.
Both concepts rely on experiences derived from participatory activities. The vision report states that during the next decade
application-driven research will produce new scientific discoveries and economic optimization leading to new technologies and industries.
and real-time technology assessment 3. The report refers to the previous involvement of a broad variety of stakeholders
The need to increase multi-stakeholder and public participation in nanotechnology governance is stated as one of the main lessons learned after ten years 3. In 2011, the key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
He distinguishes two foundational phases, called Nano 1 and Nano 2. The first foundational phase (2001 2010),
which took place in the first decade after defining the long-term vision, focused on interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale
The second foundational phase (2011 2020) is planned to be focused on the integration of nanoscale science
The goals defined in the latest NNI strategic plan of 2011 address this user-centric ecosystem by covering the whole ecosystem of innovation:
& Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 approaches to address environmental, health, safety and societal impacts of nanotechnology as environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology 46 and to develop risk governance for nanotechnology 42.
but considering the nano-related FTA of the last fifteen years, the NNI uses advanced strategic planning methods and tools and acts as a kind of umbrella organization for pooling heterogeneous future-oriented activities.
the activities under the umbrella of the National science and Technology Council Subcommittee were per se closely policy-related and, in the last decade,
Over more than a decade, the US science policy community established a continuously working core organization, built up a network and opened the network gradually to new stakeholders
nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.
started in the late 1980s and focused in the early stages on technology analysis, market analyses and technology assessment activities.
The BMBF commissioned several forecasting studies on nanotechnology-related fields starting in the early 1990s.
From1988 to 1998, the technology field wasmonitored by analyzing the literature, visiting conferences and other relevant actors internationally, organizing expert panels on different aspects of nanotechnology,
In 1998 these early monitoring and forecasting activities were followed by an initiative of the BMBF to establish the first six national nanotechnology competence centers with annual funding.
They were established to bridge the gap between science and industry from the very beginning of R&d activities 48.
At the onset of the German national nanotechnology initiative, officially started in the late 1990s by widely publicized funding programs for nanotechnology,
In 2003, the BMBF developed a national strategy for future funding and support of nanotechnology.
448 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 Nanolux (optics industry, nanotechnology for energy efficient lighting.
In 2003 the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament conducted a broad technology assessment on nanotechnology 49.
In 2006, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) established the Nanokommission a stakeholder commission on nanotechnologies as part of the federal government's high-tech strategy.
which worked in two phases until 2011, identified more than 25 examples of German dialogue processes concerned with the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies.
In 2007, the Nano-Initiative Action Plan 2010 emerged as an important part of the high-tech strategy of the German government.
Through the action plan, other federal ministries8 finally joined the German nanotechnology initiative more than fifteen years after the firstmonitoring and forecasting activitieswere conducted.
However, the next strategic document, the Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015 refers to only some initiatives of other ministries and agencies (mainly with regard to regulation,
One of the recommendations published in the Nanokommission's final report in 2011 is that the German federal government should establish a national cross-departmental internet platform providing information on developments and activities in the field of nanotechnologies 51.
In summary, for over a decade, the German variety of FTA ACTIVITIES was governed mainly by one ministry (BMBF) and focused largely on science industry relations.
and this institutional fragmentation can also be observed with regard to the governance of science, technology and innovation in the field of nanotechnology. 4. Comparing the US and Germany 4. 1. Timing and intervention Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,
Several industrial countries established their first programs in that field in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But only in the end of the 1990s were disconnected the formerly fields of nanoscale science and engineering brought together under the broader umbrella definition of nanotechnology.
Not only the range of stakeholders involved was increasing in the last decade, but also the kinds of processes expanded from studies based on expert surveys to processes involving more stakeholders (such as NGOS and citizens).
Participatory FTA ACTIVITIES increased in both countries after 2004, when nanotechnology risks was perceived first as problems
449 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 In this later stage, heterogeneous stakeholders beyond the actors of the early established nano-policy networks
which documented mutual visits and mutual screening activities in the 1990s. The US Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) published a worldwide study on Nanostructure Science and Technology in 1999.
The report includes site reports for visits conducted by the IWGN expert panel to leading research laboratories in Japan and Europe.
such as the late consideration of societal challenges, there are also differences in governance structures. In Germany, disparate sources of knowledge were pooled not
The vision-building process of 2010 served as an instrument to pool and coordinate FTA ACTIVITIES among government departments, agencies, and research communities.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several industrial countries established their first programs in 450 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452
and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
implies the need for an organizational structure that includes a variety of actors and perspectives from the outset.
In the last two decades, FTA ACTIVITIES were important means for integrating the field and in spreading the idea that nanotechnology would become one of the key enabling technologies of the 21st century.
Coherent and powerful statements of what the future governance of nanotechnology should aim to accomplish can be seen as a precondition that could potentially lead to binding prioritization of the goals to be reached by using nanotechnologies.
In the US the new vision for 2020 represents such a concept, while in Germany many different agendas were developed in parallel without a common strategy.
and that ensures the organizational continuity to use the experience and knowledge gained in distributed FTA ACTIVITIES.
Looking ahead to the next decades, an inter-organizational governance framework is crucial to uptake the knowledge as well as the requirements derived from various stakeholders.
IWGN workshop report, Vision for Nanotechnology research and Development in The next Decade, 1999.2 BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, in:
Nanotechnologie in Deutschland, BMBF Publik, Bonn, 2002, p. 16 S. 3 M. Roco, C a. Mirkin, M. Hersam, Nanotechnology research Directions for Societal Needs
in 2020, Berlin/Boston, Retrospective and Outlook, Springer, 2010.4 European commission, Green Paper, in: E. Commission (Ed.),From Challenges to Opportunities:
Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU. COM (2011) 48, Green Paper, European commission, Brussels, 2011.5 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, IWGN, E. A t.,The Interagency
Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos, VDI Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf, 1998, p. 220.7 J. Youtie, P. Shapira, A. Porter, Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries
Res. 10 (2008) 981 986.8 K. Blind, S. Gauch, Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany, J. Technol.
Transf. 34 (2009) 320 342.9 M. C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools, AICHE J. 50 (2004) 890 897.10 M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
Res. 10 (2008) 11 29.11 C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Sci. Technol.
Hum. Values (2007) 196 220.12 A. Nordmann, No future for nanotechnology? Historical development vs. global expansion, in:
F. Jotterand (Ed.),Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy issues in Bionanotechnology, Springer, Netherlands, 2008, pp. 43 63.13 P. Schaper-Rinkel, Governance von Zukunftsversprechen:
Zur politischen Ökonomie der Nanotechnologie, Prokla 36 (2006) 473 496.14 M. Kaiser, S. Maasen, M. Kurath, C. Rehmann-Sutter, Governing future technologies.
Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, in: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Springer, 2010.15 R. A w. Rhodes, Understanding governance:
ten years on, Organ. Stud. 28 (2007) 1243 1264.16 M. Roco, The long view of nanotechnology development:
the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years, J. Nanopart. Res. 13 (2011) 427 445.17 K. E. Drexler, Engines of creation, The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor Press, New york, 1987.18 K. E. Drexler
, C. Peterson, G. Pergamit, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, William Morrow, New york, 1991.19 G. Bachmann, Technologieanalyse Nanotechnologie, VDI Technologieanalyse, in:
VDI, Düsseldorf, 1994.20 POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, in: Making it in Miniature Nanotechnology Report Summery, POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, London, 1996, p. 4. 451 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change
80 (2013) 444 452 21 I. Malsch, Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts'Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-areas, Brussels Luxembourg, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997.22 National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology, in:
Shaping the World Atom by Atom, 1999, p. 12 S, Washington. 23 L. M. Pytlikzillig, A j. Tomkins, Public engagement for informing science and technology policy:
what do we know, what do need we to know, and how will we get there?
Policy Res. 28 (2011) 197 217.24 M. Powell, D. L. Kleinman, Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making:
Sci. 17 (2008) 329 348.25 R. Zimmer, R. Hertel, G.-F. Böl, Bfr Consumer Conference Nanotechnology, Federal Institute for Risk assessment, Berlin
Policy 7 (2005) 64.27 M. Keenan, R. Barré, C. Cagnin, Future-oriented technology analysis: future directions, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds.
Future-oriented technology analysis, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 163 169.28 A. Eerola, I. Miles, Methods and tools contributing to FTA:
a knowledge-based perspective, Futures 43 (2011) 265 278.29 M. Rader, A l. Porter, Fitting future-oriented technology analysis methods to study types, in:
Fitting Future-oriented technology analysis Methods to Study Types, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 25 40.30 A l. Porter, W. B. Ashton, G. Clar, J
Chang. 71 (2004) 287 303.31 A. Rip, Futures of ELSA, Sci. Soc. Ser. Converg. Res. 10 (2009) 666 670.32 A l. Porter, W. B. Ashton, United states case study, in:
L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),International Handbook on Foresight and Science policy:
Concepts and Practice, 2008, pp. 154 169.33 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2003) 93 111.34
Chang. 76 (2009) 1187 1197.35 C. Milburn, Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as science, Configurations 10 (2002) 261 296.36 S. Kaplan, J. Radin, Bounding an emerging technology:
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485.37 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Nanostructure Science and Technology, R&d Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials,
and Nanodevices, 1999.38 M. C. Roco, W s. Bainbridge, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: NSET Workshop Report, National science Foundation (NSF), 2001.39 E. Fisher, Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI:
Soc. 27 (2005) 321 328.40 M d. Cobb, Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology, Sci. Commun. 27 (2005) 221 239.41 M d. Cobb, J. Macoubrie, Public perceptions about nanotechnology:
risks, benefits and trusts, J. Nanopart. Res. 6 (2004) 395 405.42 O. Renn, M. C. Roco, Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance, J. Nanopart.
Res. 8 (2006) 153.43 D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D. H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology:
foresight, engagement, and integration, in: O. A. Edward, J. Hackett, Michael E. Lynch, Judy Wajcman (Eds.
Handbook of Science and Technology studies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2008, pp. 979 1000.44 D. H. Guston, D. Sarewitz, Real-time technology assessment, Technol.
Soc. 24 (2002) 93 109.45 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Strategic Plan, 2011. Washington. 46 M. C. Roco, Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology, How the U s. Government is Dealing with the Immediate and Long-term issues of this New technology, Environmental science & Technology, 2005.
107 112). 47 I. Miles, The development of technology foresight: a review, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 1448 1456.48 A. Zweck, G. Bachmann, W. Luther, C. Ploetz, Nanotechnology in Germany:
from forecasting to technological assessment to sustainability studies, J. Clean. Prod. 16 (2008) 977 987.49 TAB, in:
D. Bundestag (Ed.),Bericht des Ausschusses für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung (17. Ausschuss) gemäߧ56a der Geschäftsordnung Technikfolgenabschätzung hier:
report and recommendations of the German Nanokommission 2011, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2011, Berlin. 52 BMBF, Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015, BMBF, Bonn, 2011.53 T
Policy 37 (2008) 888.54 ETC Group action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), Size matters! The case for a global moratorium.
Occasional Paper Series, vol. 7, nr. 1, 2003, p. 20s,(Winnipeg. 55 R c. Swiss re, in:
Small Matter, Many Unknowns, 2004, p. 57s, Zürich. 56 B. Wynne, Public participation in science and technology:
Int. J. 1 (2007) 99 110.57 D. Barben, Analyzing acceptance politics: towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology, Public Underst.
Sci. 19 (2010) 274 292.58 E. Altvater, B. Mahnkopf, The world market unbound, Rev. Int. Polit.
Econ. 4 (1997) 448 471.59 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:
Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.60 U. Felt, M. Fochler, Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement, Minerva 48 (2010) 219 238.61 K. Braun, S. Schultz, a certain amount of engineering involved:
constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements, Public Underst. Sci. 19 (2010) 403 419. Dr. Petra Schaper-Rinkel, political scientist, is a senior scientist and scientific project manager at the AIT Austrian Institute of technology in Vienna.
Her current research focuses on foresight, governance of emerging technologies, and methods and practices of futuring. 452 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452
Envisioning structural transformation lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation Elna Schirrmeister, Philine Warnke Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany a r t
Received 14 may 2011 Revised 25 june 2012 Accepted 23 august 2012 Available online 2 november 2012 The paper aims to contribute towards building foresight capacities for systemic and structural transformations.
and potential structural transformation of innovation processes. 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: Vision Structural transformation Inductive approach Foresight methodology Innovation pattern Visualisation Scenarios Weak signals 1. Introduction Envisioning structural transformation in foresight exercises is challenging.
Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 Corresponding author. E-mail address: Elna. Schirrmeister@isi. fraunhofer. de (E. Schirrmeister.
0040-1625/$ see front matter 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx. doi. org/10.1016/j. techfore. 2012.10.008 Contents lists available at Sciverse Sciencedirect Technological forecasting
Early models saw innovation processes as a linear sequence of functional activities distinguishing only between technology push
For decades the dominant definition of innovation as new products and processes that are introduced to the market combined with the common understanding of companies as the main actors in this process was questioned hardly ever.
It was carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the Austrian Institute of technology AIT (Austria), Fraunhofer ISI (Germany), Z punkt (Germany) and Solutioning Design Scenarios SDS (Belgium.
whereas an intuitive approach without any software support has been practiced for many years in the US 17.
Both these 1 www. innovation-futures. org. 454 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 approaches can be termed inductive
In the past years approaches have been developed to integrate disruptive events into scenario building in the form of wildcards 20.
which was scanned then systematically back to the year 2007 by the project teammembers, who acted as signal scouts in this phase of the project.
80 (2013) 453 466 Transfers to other sectors, to other user groups...e g. from fashion to furniture industry;
and there would be no time lag, thanks to real time investigation. Fig. 2. Amplification example: web-extracted innovation. 456 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 Fig. 3. Screenshot from the INFU web-based
survey. 457 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 Fig. 4. Visualisation of all INFU visions. 458 E. Schirrmeister,
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 2. 2. Visual inspiration The INFU amplifications were illustrated in a visual,
easy to grasp format consisting of one image with commenting text line (c. f. Fig. 3). A trailer introducing all 19 visionswith a short introductionwas created
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 without any rootwithin phenomena that can be observed today 25,26.
This image seemed to foster the idea of time consuming and slow participative processes. This interpretation did not correspondwith the intention of the project team and the comprehensive description of the vision.
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 the scenario building activity is looking for a consensus building process among the participants
emblematic images (e g. for widespread creativity, Fig. 8) abstract schemes (e g. for social experimentation, Fig. 9) stories fromthe future ranging from short day in a life segments (e g. for deliberative innovation
Centralised-Distributed Innovation continuity Permanent-Occasional Innovation acessibility Free-Private Innovation tangibility Tangible-Intangible Innovation motivation Profit/Benefit-Normative/Mission
& Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 mini panels were the emergence of more active roles for users and citizens
and use phases. 462 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 (2) Participation:
Making his contribution at the yearly I-day of Innovation Fig. 10. Element from INFU mini panel vision Deliberative Innovation A day in a life of a Citizen in the Deliberative Innovation Scheme.
Fig. 9. Element from INFU mini panel Participatory Innovation. 463 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466
(7) Spatial shifts: Innovation will change its spatial patterns: local elements are likely to gain relevance resulting in a more distributed innovation scenery
The consideration of very diverse perspectives can be seen as an important starting point for the assessment of systemic change.
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 dominance of the macro-level and the influence of today's perception of consistency were reduced to give room for creative assessment of structural transformation.
which is needed to envisage structural transformation challenging today's paradigms. 4. Conclusions As INFU was being finalised at the time of writing it is too early to assess the usefulness or even the impact of its findings in a reliable manner.
and fostered the integration of diverse perspectives not only at the beginning but throughout the project.
ISPIM conference Hamburg, 17 20th of June 2011, Lift conference Marseilles 2/3 july 2011 (INFU workshop), FTA conference Sevilla 2011,
and R&d Management Conference Manchester 2nd of June 2010 (INFU workshop). 465 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 References 1 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C
. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal.
Manag. 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.2 R. Miller, Futures literacy: a hybrid strategic scenario method, Futures 39 (4)( 2007) 341 362.3 European commission, Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
Europe 2020, Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Brussels, 2010.4 P. Warnke, Implementing transformative innovation policy priorities, in:
JRC-IPTS (Ed.),The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), Book of Abstracts, Sevilla, 2011.5 P.-B. Joly, A. Rip, M. Callon, Reinventing innovation, in:
Firms, Clusters and Institutions in a Changing Setting, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2010, pp. 19 32.6 F. Steward, Breaking the boundaries, Transformative Innovation for the Global Good, NESTA, 2008.7
Chang. 78 (1)( 2011) 90 102.8 R. Bleischwitz, B. Bahn-Walkowiak, W. Irrek, P. Schepelmann, F. Schmidt-Bleek, et al.
critical success factors for the 1990's, R&d Manag. 22 (3)( 1992) 221 239.11 W c. Kim, R. Mauborgne, Strategy, value innovation,
Rev. 78 (September October 1999) 129 141.12 I. Miles, Innovation In services, Oxford university Press, New york, 2005.13 G. Mulgan, R. Ali, R. Halkett
Stud. 11 (2)( 2006) 61 74.21 T. Postma, F. Liebl, How to improve scenario analysis as strategic management tool?
Chang. 72 (2005) 161 173.22 E. Hiltunen, The future sign and its three dimensions, Futures 40 (3)( 2008) 247 260.23 F. Jégou, K
Sustainable Everyday, Scenarios of Urban Life, 2003, pp. 246 255.26 F. Jégou, S. Vincent, Co-design approaches for early phases of augmented environments, in:
Transitionspfade der Nutzerintegration Erkenntnisse aus einem Vorausschau Prozess, Vorausschau und Technologieplanung, W v. Westfalia Druck Gmbh, Paderborn, 2008, pp. 321 340.28
Operations research Proceedings 2005, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 741 746.29 P. Warnke, E. Schirrmeister, INFU scenario assessment report (deliverable D
Ansoff Today, Futures 44 (2012) 198 205.32 B. Ralston, W. Ralston, The Scenario planning Handbook: A Practitioner's Guide to Developing and Using Scenarios to Direct Strategy in Today's Uncertain Times, Thomson Southwestern, Mason, Ohio, 2006.33 J. Buur, B. Matthews, Participatory innovation, Int
. J. Innov. Manag. 12 (3)( 2008) 255 273.34 J. Grin, J. Rotmans, J. Schot, Transitions to sustainable development, New Directions in the Study of Long term Transformative Change, Routledge
, New york/London, 2010.35 K. M. Weber, H. Rohracher, Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change:
combining insights from innovation systems and multilevel perspective in a comprehensive‘failures'framework, Research policy 41 (2012) 1037 1042.
Elna Schirrmeister is a senior researcher and project manager at Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research since 1999.
She has been Deputy Head of the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight between 2009 and 2011.
In the past ten years she has worked on Foresight at Fraunhofer ISI and at the European commission's institute for prospective technological studies JRC-IPTS.
Her research focuses on Foresight methodology and the mutual shaping of technology and society. 466 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011