Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'Michael Keenan1,,*Paul Cutler2, 3, John Marks4, Richard Meylan2, 5, Carthage Smith2 and Emilia Koivisto2, 6 1directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD,
and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK 2international Council for Science, 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie
, 75116 Paris, France 3present address: Division of Earth sciences, National science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA 4kort Galgewater 16,2312 BR Leiden, Netherlands 5present address Royal
Society of New zealand, PO BOX 598, Wellington 6140, New zealand 6present address Institute of Seismology, P o box 68 (Gustaf Ha llstro min katu 2b), FI
-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland*Corresponding author. Email: michael. keenan@oecd. org Over the coming decades, science will play a key role in society's response to emerging global‘grand challenges'.
'The agenda-setting, coordination and conduct of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is diffused
Longer-term perspectives must also be incorporated to reflect the time horizons of key global challenges
which has explored how two decades hence international collaboration in science could foster progress in science and address global challenges.
ICSU is a non-governmental organisation with a global membership of national scientific bodies Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 166 177 doi:
10.1093/scipol/scs019 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
UN Commission on Sustainable development, Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2012. ICSU has been using foresight practices for some time to determine research priorities (Teixeira et al. 2002)
and to develop mobilising visions of the orientation of whole research fields (ICSU 2010). The purpose of its current foresight exercise is to explore the potential development of international science over the next two decades in a changing economic, social, political and environmental context.
From an organisational perspective, it is designed to test the role and mission of ICSU and guide long-term strategic choices aimed at strengthening internatioona science for the benefit of society.
To this end, the conduct of the foresight exercise has been synchronized closely with the development of the ICSU strategic plan 2012 7 (ICSU 2011a)
and it is expected to have a significant influence on the implementation of this plan. At the same time
and the scope for using foresight to further international science cooperation in the future. 2. The past and the present of international science cooperation Before thinking about the futures of international science cooperation,
it is essential to appreciate something of the past and the present. In this section, a short‘potted'history of international science cooperation since the Second world war is provided,
followed by a snapshot of the current landscape. 2. 1 A short history of international science cooperation Large-scale international science cooperation really began after the Second world war
The International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957 8 was the first large-scale international field study.
This IGY heralded a new era in collaborative earth sciences research. Taking place at Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.
'167 the height of the Cold war, it demonstrated that even during tense political times scientists from around the world could work together for the betterment of society.
In the mid-1980s following signals of potential climate change as a consequence of increasing CO2 emissions, the scientific community, under the aegis of ICSU, established the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.
and the UN Environment Programme in 1987 to carry out integrated assessments of scientific evidence. It has engaged over 3,
completed in 2003. This 13-year project coordinated by the US Department of energy and the National institutes of health aimed to discover all the estimated 20,000 25,000 human genes
and make them accesssibl for further biological study. During the early years of the HGP
the Wellcome Trust (UK) became a major partner. Additional contributions came from Japan, France, Germany, China and others.
Regional initiatives, particularly the development of a transnational European research area, are having a signifiican effect on international science cooperation (European commission 2008.
Whilst several countries such as Brazil, China and India are making rapid progress (Royal Society 2011
There remain a large number of poorer countries where investment in science is negligible (UNESCO 2010.
In 2002 it commissioned a meta-analysis of the results of several existing national foresight exercises with the aim of identifying future priority areas for international science cooperation (Teixera et al. 2002.
More recently, ICSU has started to use foresight approaches in some of its thematic work. For example, it has been carrying out a visioning exercise On earth systems research with a view to identifying a single strategic framework for global environmental change research and its policy relevance (ICSU 2010.
In contrast to these earlier foresight approaches, the exercise described in this paper neither attempted to identify research priorities nor did it focus on any particulla research field.
The 2002 foresight exercise had explicitly set out to identify priority areas of science for ICSU to focus upon in its new strategic plan (ICSU 2006.
These areas were considdere to still be valid in 2009 and are being carried mostly over into the new strategic plan (2012 7). Therefore,
the new exercise set out to focus on the exploration of possible futures of international science cooperation and the roles ICSU might play.
and Review (CSPR) and was started in October 2009. The sub-sections that follow begin with a discussion of the considerations
and the results generated. 3. 1 Scoping the exercise's design A number of important decisions were taken at the outset by ICSU regarding the scope and scale of the exercise.
Following a foresight design framework outlined by Keenan and Miles (2008 these can be grouped as follows:.
a scenario approach was preferred from the outset, allowing for exploration of possible futures and for articulation of a visionary‘success scenario'..
it was recognised from the outset that the various results generated would likely be useful to other organisations, particularly the ICSU members, in their own strategy processes..
This was taken the approach in 2002 but had resulted in some problems absorbing the results into the ICSU strategic plan.
The project was supported by a project officer in the ICSU Secretariat who was able to give about one-third of his working time
This approach was especially important in the first phase where numerous existing project meetings were able to set aside an hour
Time horizon: The time horizon of the foresight exercise had to be beyond ICSU's usual planning horizons of 5 10 years.
The question was by how much longer. Many of the grand challenges that ICSU activities are focused upon,
particularly climate change, involve change over relatively long time periods measured at least in decades. But this is too long for an exercise that is focused on organisational agility and a vision for international science cooperatiion Given the relative trade-offs,
the exercise settled for a 20-year time horizon, which happens to coincide with the centenary of the founding of ICSU in 1931.
how have changed things over the last 20 years and to what extent were anticipated these? In some ways, a lot has changed since 1990, e g. the internet,
but in others, many of the problems faced in 2010 were discussed already widely, e g. environmental concerns.
While there is no guarantte that patterns of change will be similar in scope and scale over the coming two decades as they were in the previous
and there is certainly reason to believe that some major disruptions lay ahead in the medium term,
perhaps coalescing into a‘perfect storm'of major problems (Beddington 2009) this thought experiment served to lessen the remoteness of 2031
Duration: Given available resources and the scope of the exercise, it was thought at the outset that the exercise would take about 12 8 months to complete from start to finish.
This would give sufficient time for the project's final results to be generated and fed into the new round of strategic planning.
This timetaabl was compromised, however, by delays due to changes in key staff. As a consequence, the results generated in the later stages of the project (essentially the visionary success scenario) have shaped perhaps not ICSU's new strategic plan to the degree that was planned originally
though the intermediate products, such as forecasts around key drivers of change, were used extensively. 3. 2 The three phases of ICSU foresight The foresight exercise entailed three phases as follows:.
Phase 1 october 2009 to April 2010: Gather perspectiive on the key drivers influencing international science in the next 20 years (from individuals in ICSU's membership, bodies,
partners and other stakeholdders including young scientists, as well as from the literature)..Phase 2 april 2010 to March 2011:
Build exploratory scenarios from the key drivers and conduct a broad consultation with the same range of parties identified for the previous phase..
Phase 3 march 2011 to February 2012: Use the key drivers and exploratory scenarios to develop and validate a visionary‘success scenario'of where ICSU should be Going in the process,
During Phase 1, perspectives were gathered on potential drivers of international science over the next 20 years.
and early career scientiist (who had participated previously in a meeting marking ICSU's 75th anniversary in 2006);
importance of the driver in shaping future developmeent over the next 20 years in international science. uncertainty around the direction and dynamics of the driver over the next 20 years and the impacts it is likely to have on international science
which trends over the next 20 years are more or less clear at least in their direction of evolution, if not in their precise impacts, as follows:.
from oceans to ecosysteem to the cryosphere and atmosphere, the forecasts are consistent in suggesting broad changes with major impacts on society over the coming two decades..
there is a high degree of certainty that these will occur over the next two decades, probably in several fields..
and presented as a‘general context'to developments over the coming 20 years. In addition, a further 13 key drivers, for which trends are much more uncertain,
see Bo rjeson et al. 2006). The approach used for building exploratory scenarios in the ICSU exercise broadly aligned with a process previouusl developed by former Royal dutch shell Group staff,
which has been popularised in several publications (Schwartz 1998; Ogilvy and Schwartz 1998. The first step involved developing plausible forecasts for each of the 13 key drivers.
Draft forecasts were prepared by the ICSU Secretariat with inputs from the Task Team. A two-day scenario workshop involving the Task Team was held in April 2010
in order to sharpen the forecasts and to use them as a basis for developing contrasting explorrator scenarios of the future of international science cooperation.
In a following step, scenarios were developed within four distinct‘scenario spaces'framed by two axes selected from the list of key drivers (van't Klooster and van Asselt 2006.
The second selected axis was based on the‘science and society'driver. At one end of this axis
The present range of options extends from market-based economies to stronger developmental state intervention to communism,
but new systems may develop over the coming two decades, possibly informed by greater consideration of the environment.
The places where science research will take place may change. Universities are presently key players but consortia of researchers,
The last decade has seen significant changes in the nature of the scientific record. The move to open-access publishing is likely to have a number of impacts, in particular,
and over the course of the months following the April 2010 workshop, the exploratoor scenarios were redrafted several times.
The CSPR played an important role in further sharpening the scenarrio at its September 2010 meeting, after
offer four distinct, yet plausible images of the future‘world order'and of international science cooperation 20 years from now.
The success scenario approach has been pioneered by researchers at the University of Manchester (see Miles (2005) for an overview)
In the ICSU exercise, the success scenario was drafted by the ICSU Secretariat using the results of a dedicated one-day scenario workshop involving all members of CSPR
ICSU officers, regional committee chairs and most of the ICSU Secretariat and the results of a more focused half-day workshop involving Task Team members.
The resulting success scenario has a 20-year time horizon outlining the contours of a desirable state of international cooperation in science in 2031 and ICSU's role in its achievement.
only its general contours are presented in Box 2. Through‘backcasting'from the future success scenario of 2031 to the present day,
and articulating the challenges to be faced by international science cooperation over the coming decades. The new plan also includes commitments to engage the ICSU memberrshi in continuing foresight analysis
The internal impacts of the success scenario are less certain at the time of writing,
The exercise and its results were debated extensively at ICSU's General assembly in September 2011, a gathering of the ICSU‘family'of member organisations that occurs every three years.
Overall, the exercise was viewed favourabbl as a way of positioning and visioning science in society
as is done often in business environments (Mendonc¸a et al. 2003). Shortlists of relevant wild cards can be assembled readily through a mix of group brainstorming
and from the EC-funded iknow project dedicated to the collection and analysis of wild cards and weak signals (iknow 2011).
Science Forum in Budapest in November 2011) the explorrator scenarios were picked quickly up and featured in an article in Nature (Macilwain 2011).
This can be taken as a strong signal of the likely interest of the science policy community in the scenarios. 4. 2 Lessons in conducting international foresight Reflecting on the approach taken in the ICSU foresight,
though the present authors have not found other examples that focus on mechanisms for internatiiona science collaboration.
For example, experiences with international foresight using scenarios have been described by Cagnin and Ko nno la (2011) for the domain of intelligent and sustainable manufacturing,
while the European Science Foundation (ESF) created a programme of Forward Looks in 2000 as an instrument for developing medium term perspectives on future directions of multi-disciplinary research in Europe. 4 In national settings,
and for improving organisatioona agility vis-a vis future unpredictable change (Miles et al. 2008). These are all qualities that that can benefit international science cooperation as it seeks to address many of the grand challenges of our time.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support of the CSPR in conducting the exercise, and particularly Task Team members Kari Raivio, Roberta Balstad, Nebojsa Nakicenovic and Lidia Brito.
ICSU is seen as an independent platform able to bring together funders and the science community to co-design programmes, building on the success of the Earth System Sustainability Initiative, 2012 22.
ICSU also launched a high-profile prize scheme in 2015 to recognise achievement by early career researchers working in interdisciplinary research and communication.
Furthermore, as part of its Initiative On earth System Sustainability, 2012 22, ICSU worked with funding agencies to encourage the development of internatioona courses targeted at developing the ability of young researchers to conduct interdisciplinary research.
Notes 1. The German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (2010) has developed also exploratory scenarios for the future of the European research landscape in 2025.2.
See<http://www. sigmascan. org>accessed 10 march 2012.3. See<http://wiwe. iknowfutures. eu/>accessed 10 march 2012.4.
In 2007 ESF evaluated the experiences with Forward Looks (Van der meulen 2007. Though the Forward Looks focus on science agendas,
they do address issues of international collaboration. ICSU's lessons match the experiences of ESF.
References Beddington, J. 2009)‘ Food, energy, water and the climate: A perfect storm of global events?'
'speech delivered at the conferrenc‘Sustainable development UK 09',held London, 19 march 2009. Bo rjeson, L.,Ho jer, M.,Dreborg, K.,Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. 2006)‘ Scenario types and techniques:
Towards a user's guide',Futures, 38: 723 39. Cagnin, C. and Ko nno la, T. 2011)‘ The challenge of global foresight:
lessons from scenario and roadmapping process on intelligent and sustainable manufacturing systems, 'paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, held Seville, Spain, 12 may 2011.
European commission. 2008)‘ Opening to the World: International Cooperation in Science and Technology',report of the ERA Expert Group 5, Directorate-General for Research, EUR 23325 EN.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European communities. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. 2010) Envisioning Future research Horizons: Scenarios for the European research Landscape 2025.
Munich: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. ICSU. 2006) Strengthening International Science for the Benefit of Society: ICSU Strategic Plan 2006 2011.
Paris: International council for science..(2010) Earth System Science for Global sustainability: The Grand challenges. Paris: International council for science..(2011a) ICSU Strategic Plan II, 2012 2017.
Paris: International council for science..(2011b)‘ ICSU Foresight Analysis Report 1: International Science in 2031 Exploratory scenarios'.'Paris: International council for science. iknow.
2011)‘ iknow ERA Toolkit: Applications of Wild Cards and Weak signals to the Grand challenges and Thematic Priorities of the European research area'.
'Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester. Keenan, M. and Miles, I. 2008)‘ Scoping
and planning foresigght'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 342 75.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Macilwain, C. 2011)‘ Science's attitudes must reflect a world in crisis',Nature, 479: 447,24 November 2011.
Mendonc¸A s.,Cunha, M. P. E.,Kaivo-oja, J. and Ruff, F. 2003)‘ Wild cards, weak signals and organizational improvisattion'FEUNL Working Paper 432.
Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Miles, I. 2005)‘ Scenario planning',in UNIDO Technology foresight Manual, Vol. 1, pp. 168 93.
Vienna: UNIDO. Miles, I.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Georghiou, L.,Keenan, M. and Popper, R. 2008)‘ The many faces of foresight'.
'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 3 23.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ogilvy, J. and Schwartz, P. 1998)‘ Plotting your scenarios'.'In: Fahey, L. and Randell, R. eds) Learning from the future.
New york: Wiley. Royal Society. 2011) Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st century.
London: Royal Society. Schwartz, P. 1998) The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World.
New york: Wiley. Teixeira, A.,Martin, B. and von Tunzelmann, N. 2002)‘ Identification of Key Emerging Issues in Science and Society:
an International Perspective on National foresight Studies',review report to the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review Report.
Brighton: University of Sussex. UNESCO. 2010)‘ UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World'.
'Paris: UNESCO. Van der meulen, B. 2007)‘ Looking Beyond the Endless Frontier, ESF Forward Look Scheme: Analysis and Recommendations',report to the European Science Foundation.
Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. van‘t Klooster, S. A. and van Asselt, M. B. A. 2006)‘ Practising the scenario-axes technique',Futures, 38:15 30.
Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.
Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design Toni Ahlqvist1,,*Ville Valovirta2 and Torsti Loikkanen2 1vtt Technical research Centre of Finland, Ita inen Pitka katu 4, Turku, P o box 106,20521 Turku, Finland 2vtt Technical research
Centre of Finland, Tekniikantie 2, P o box 1000,02044 VTT, Finland*Corresponding author. Email: toni. ahlqvist@vtt. fi The systemic characteristics of science, technology and innovation policies have been discussed much recently.
socio-technical transformation. 1. Introduction Since the 1960s, the results of R&d practices have increasinngl been approached as knowledge inputs in the construuctio of science and technology policies.
and along with the emergence of an emphasis on innovation policy in the 1990s, many new features,
Because of these developments, in the 2000s it has become more common to talk about systemicity in the context of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies.
As Smits and Kuhlmann (2004: 11) argue, innovation is a systemic activity that:..involves a variety of actions within the system,
but also the policy-making process could benefit from the use of‘systemic instruments'(Smits and Kuhlmann 2004:
In recent years, roadmapping has been applied increasingly as an instrument of strategy-making (Blackwell et al. 2008.
In Section 3 we Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 178 190 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs016 Advance Access published on 16 march 2012 The Author 2012.
Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. permissions@oup. com outline the methodological background and the policy ratioonal of IPRM.
diffusion and embedding innovatiions such as universities, public and private R&d organizations, companies and various intermediate organizattions and the collective learning processes between these organizations (Smits et al. 2010).
Secondly, the literature on systemic innovations and transition managemeen emphasizes the dynamic relations of sociotechnoologica landscapes, socio-technical regimes and niche-level innovations in the context of emerging technologies (Geels and Schot 2007.
Thirdly, the literature on technological systems places the emphasis on networks of agents in a specific economic or industrial sector and the particular institutional infrastructure involved in the generaatio and diffusion of technology (Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1991.
In this view, system failures are approached as outcomes of‘rigidities and mistakes of innovation agents'and‘a lack of linkages and fragmentatiio between innovation actors'(Georghiou and Keenan 2006:
Georghiou and Keenan (2006: 764) also propose that foresight has other functions, like exploring future opportunities in order to set priorities for investment in science and innovation activities,
2009: 955) argue that policy processes have gone through a conceptual shift in which a linear model of policy-making has been replaced with a more learningbaase cyclical model.
strategic counselling and facilitating (Weber et al. 2009: 956). ) Georghiou and Keenan (2006: 766) also distinguish three policy rationales of foresight.
The first is the provision of policy advice by accentuating the long-term perspective. The second is the building of advocacy coalitions.
Foresight builds up an‘interaction space'by stimulating new networks and communities through the formation of a common vision.
2008: 369) aptly capture the functions of foresiigh in the context of policy design. The functions of foresiigh are:.
IPRM builds on two cultures of roadmapping (on roadmapping, see Barker and Smith 1995; Kostoff and Schaller 2001;
Farrukh et al. 2003; Kostoff et al. 2004; Phaal et al. 2004; Lee and Park 2005; Phaal and Muller 2009.
The first is the culture of technology roadmapping, in which roadmapping is approached as a normative instruumen to identify relevant technologies
and align them with explicit product plans and related action steps. In this culture the roadmapping process is a systematic managemmen practice aimed at product development.
The second is the emerging culture of strategy roadmapping in which the roadmapping is perceived more as a dynamic
and iterative process that produces weighed crystallizzations usually in a visual form, of an organization's long-term vision,
and short-to medium-term strategies to realize this vision. It is based on an idea that roadmaps are like visual narratives that describe the most critical paths of future developments (Phaal and Muller 2009.
This visual emphasis enables the use of roadmaps as crystallized strategy maps that open up a simultaneous perspective on both the macro-level currents and on the corresponding micro-level developments (Blackwell et al. 2008.
This‘second culture'is methodologically more exploratory than traditional technology roadmapping. The roadmaps are approached not as‘hermetic'plans to achieve definite goals (e g. new products),
but instead they are approached as knowledge umbrellas that depict a large-scale strategy picture of a system.
This idea links the strategy roadmapping to organization and strategy studies, especially to strategy crafting (Whittington and Cailluet 2008;
Heracleous and Jacobs 2008. IPRM can be compared to a transition management (TM) framework. TM was developed in The netherlands in the early 2000s (e g.
Rotmans et al. 2001. The aim of TM is to connect micro-scale technical niches into macrosccal landscape developments through the middle-scale of a socio-technical regime (Geels 2004:
915). ) It is supposed that transitions result from a multilayered process of interactions:.Niche innovations build up internal momentum, through learning processes, price/performance improveements and support from powerful groups..
Changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime..Destabilization of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche innovations (Geels 2002,2005;
Geels and Schot 2007; Eerola and Loikkanen 2009. Heiskanen et al. 2009: 411 2) have provided a crystallizaatio of the central features of TM.
First, TM is based on long-term thinking. In this case, the long-term stands for a period of over 25 years.
Secondly, TM accentuates the interrelatedness of societal and technological systems and the multiplicity of actors.
Thirdly, TM emphasizes both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Fourthly, TM puts a specific emphasis on crafting the policy activities according to the long-term systemic targets.
and align their timing. Particularly when developmeent commercialization and diffusion of innovation takes place in a context with a high degree of systemic characteristics
either singular technologies or logical temporal sequences, in the roadmap structure. When the business environment follows the systemic logic of a value network rather than the more linear logic of a value chain,
it is important to identify all the elements and linkages in a network (Adner and Kapoor 2010).
and start to extrapolate steps backwards from the vision towards the present stage. This method is known as backcasting.
i e. to define the present state and start to build steps, finally reaching the long-term state.
Present Medium term Long term Present stage Change 2 Change 3 Change 4 Drivers Present Medium term Long term Vision Present stage Change 2
Change 3 Change 4 Present stage Change 2 Change 3 Change 4 Technology roadmap 1 Policies:
the Victoria Technology roadmap, made by Intellectual Capital Services (ICS) and VTT, in Victoria, Australia, in 2009.
Commissioned by the Victorian government, the purpose of the Victoria Technology roadmap was to build a synthesizing picture of the effects of emerging technologies and technology convergence in the region of Victoria, Australia, up until the year 2020.
companies that operate across several jurisdictions report high compliance costs due to multiple regulatory frameworrks The second bottleneck is based the project nature of construction, with little replication at the design level.
Project processes usually have nonstandard features that do not support systematic repetition (Gann and Salter 2000.
as both demand and profits are subject to strong variation (Squicciarini and Asikainen 2010). The fifth systemic bottleneck is split incentives.
Building owners and users do not have the same incentives to improve building performmanc in relation to, for example, energy efficiency (World Business Council for Sustainable development 2009.
Present Medium term Long term Present stage Technology developments 2 Technology developments 3 Technology developments 4 Technologybaase solutions Present Medium term Long term Vision Present stage Technology developments
2 Technology developments 3 Technology developments 4 Present stage Needs and market developments 2 Needs and market developments 3 Needs and market developments 4 Present stage Enabling technologies, convergence
targeted towards the year 2020, was the following: Victoria is sophisticated a market for green and intelligent buildings.
At the level of drivers, the most important policy would be Present Medium term Long term Drivers Present Medium term Long term Vision Policies:
Real-time energy management systems; Sensor networks and ubiquitous sensing Nanostructured materials; Low-exergy technologies renewable sources, energy storage;
but should be offset by demandorieente innovation policy measures such as smart regulatiio and public procurement. 4. 2. 3 Sectoral development.
and solutiions The present markets are fragmented and emphasiiz suboptimization by price. The regulations are defined mainly technically,
The most important present solutions are: assessment and certification services, low-energy concepts and distributed building services systems (e g. heating and air conditioning.
development of ICTS will focus on product model technologies linking design, building, operation and real-time EMS.
In materials, a key present enabling technology is advanced materials and energy efficient lighting solutions (e g. LED. In the long term, the use of low-energy technologies and energy efficient, flexible lighting solutions (e g.
It was completed as a strategic process at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland in 2010, with two aims:
in order to improve environmental sustainability (Ahola et al. 2010). The case example consists of a transformation roadmap (see Fig. 4)
The long-term vision, targeted towards the year 2025, for the roadmap of environmentally sustainable ICT was the following:
ICT will increasingly be present in our everyday private and business life. It has contributed to decreasing the resource consumption and resource-intensive lifestyles in many ways.
Smart production and recycling technologies have resulted in Drivers Present Medium term Long term Vision Technology roadmap 1:
Optimizing systems Increasing awareness of global consequences of climate change Economic recession Emission trading starts to have effect on companies Rising living standards in BRIC countries Green values:
duration, upgradeability, recyclability Global treaties, initiatives and campaigns on environmental questions Shortage of fossil fuels and fresh water Standardization of green monitoring solutions REGULATION AND DEMAND-SIDE POLICIES:
The second is the economic recession. Recession is empathetically a double-edged phenomenon: it can be a driver for environmental solutions by focusing on issues such as the reduction of materials
The strategic policy issues in environmentaall sustainable ICT start from the present zero position in which there is basically no regulation
and sensor network-based subutility energy measurements play a key Present Medium term Long term Key technologybaase solutions Vision Basic automatic meter reading (AMR) maturing Present
and Keenan (2006) who emphasize the systemic rationale of foresight. Foresight enables the connection between multiple stakeholdders with diverging perspectives
Foresight processes can produce outcomes that spring from interactions between multiple stakeholders. The success of the systemic foresight process could be evaluated, for example,
R. 2010)‘ Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependennc affects firm performance in new technology generations',Strategic management Journal, 31: 306 33.
Ahola, J.,Ahlqvist, T.,Ermes, M.,Myllyoja, J. and Savola, J. 2010) ICT for Environmental sustainability.
Barker, D. and Smith, D. J. H. 1995)‘ Technology foresight using roadmaps',Long Range Planning, 28:21 8. Blackwell, A f.,Phaal, R.,Eppler, M
. and Crilly, N. 2008)‘ Strategy roadmaps: new forms, new practices'.'In: Stapleton, G.,Howse, J. and Lee, J. eds) Diagrams 2008, pp. 127 40.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. 1991)‘ On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems',Journal of Evolutionary economics, 1: 93 118.
Da Costa, O.,Warnke, P.,Cagnin, C. and Scapolo, F. 2008)‘ The impact of foresight on policy-making:
Insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process',Technology analysis and Strategic management, 20: 369 87. Innovation policy roadmapping. 189 Eerola, A. and Loikkanen, T. 2009) Governance and Research of Nordic Energy system Transition-Summary Report of the Gorenest Project, VTT Research Notes 2505.
Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy. Farrukh, C.,Phaal, R. D. and Probert, R. 2003)‘ Technology roadmapping:
Linking technology resources into business planning',International Journal of Technology management, 26:12 9. Gann, D. and Salter, A. 2000)‘ Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms:
The construction of complex products and systems',Research policy, 29: 955 72. Geels, F. W. 2002)‘ Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
A multilevel perspective and a case study',Research policy, 31: 1257 74..(2004)‘ From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems.
Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory',Research policy, 33: 897 920..(2005)‘ Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations:
Refining the co-evolutionary multilevel perspectivve'Technological forecasting and Social Change, 72: 681 96. Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. 2007)‘ Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways',Research policy, 36: 399 417.
Georghiou, L. and Keenan, M. 2006)‘ Evaluation of natioona foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 73: 761 77.
Heiskanen, E.,Kivisaari, S.,Lovio, R. and Mickwitz, P. 2009)‘ Designed to travel? Transition management encounters environnmenta and innovation policy histories in Finland',Policy Sciences, 42: 409 27.
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. D. 2008)‘ Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors',Long Range Planning, 41: 309 25.
Kostoff, R. N. and Schaller, R. R. 2001)‘ Science and technoloog roadmaps',IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48: 132 43.
Kostoff, R. N.,Boylan, R. and Simons, G r. 2004)‘ Disruptive technology roadmaps',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 71: 141 59.
Lee, S. and Park, Y. 2005)‘ Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: Overall process and detailed modules',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 72: 567 83.
Phaal, R. and Muller, G. 2009)‘ An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy',Technological forecasting & Social Change, 76:39 49.
Phaal, R.,Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. 2004)‘ Technology roadmapping a planning framework for evoluttio and revolution',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 71:5 26.
Rotmans, J.,Kemp, R. and Van Asselt, M. 2001)‘ More evoluttio than revolution: Transition management in public policy',Foresight, 3: 15 31.
Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. 2004)‘ The rise of systemic instrumeent in innovation policy',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 4 32.
Smits, R.,Kuhlmann, S. and Shapira, P.,eds,(2010) The Theory and Practice of Innovation policy:
An International research Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Squicciarini, M. and Asikainen, A. 2010)‘ Sectoral innovation performance in the construction sector'.
'Final report, task 1. Europe Innova, Innovation Watch. World Business Council for Sustainable development. 2009) Energy efficiency in Buildings.
Transforming the Market. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable development. Weber, M.,Kubeczko, K.,Kaufmann, A. and Grunewald, B. 2009)‘ Trade-offs between policy impacts of future-oriented analysis:
experiences from the innovation policy foresight and strategy process of the City of Vienna',Technology analysis and Strategic management, 21: 953 69.
Whittington, R. and Cailluet, L. 2008)‘ The crafts of strategy',Long Range Planning, 41: 241 7. 190.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011