years

ART89.pdf

Global foresight: Lessons from a scenario and roadmapping exercise on manufacturing systems Cristiano Cagnin a b,,

*Totti Ko nno la c adg Joint research Centre for Prospective and Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), Seville, Spain b Center for Strategic studies and Management

less attention has been paid to the theory and Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:

Available online 12 february 2014 Keywords: Innovation International foresight Roadmapping Scenarios Vision-building A b s T R A c T Geographical dispersion, organisational and cultural differences,

and managing the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) 2020 project. The first principle is interconnected understanding innovation systems. This principle ensures that participants position the foresight exercise and their own activities in a global context.

Overall, due to the heterogeneity of global projects, all four principles must also be implemented in keeping with a scalable design approach. 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

w ww. elsevier. co m/loc ate/fu tu r es 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

and managing the IMS 2020 project. The authors develop four principles that they believe should be taken into account

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 28 In the design phase is important to structure aspects such the interactions between people (e g. participants, stakeholders, policy and decision makers,

The establishment of strong connections with existing formal and informal networks, 3 particularly those contacts cultivated over the years 18,

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 29 of results. Conducting the investigation this way makes it possible to address multiple levels

intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS) 2020 IMS2020 was an FP7 project funded by the NMP division of the European commission within the IMS Framework, conducted by an international consortium of 15 core partners and a large group

The main objective was the creation of five research roadmaps towards IMS by the year 2020 and beyond.

Four scenario snapshots of possible states of the future by 2025 were developed. Based on these the IMS2020 Vision was defined.

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 30 online tools to engage project partners and the supporting roadmapping group4 in well-defined stages.

T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 31 3. 2. Scenarios and joint vision A more in depth analysis of the findings of the state of the art and expectations

6. Developing the selected snapshots highlighting how their main features interact within each possible state of the future by 2025.

The timeframe 2025 was selected both to break from current mindsets and to allow partners to think freely without trying to connect these possible states of the future with the desired IMS2020 vision,

and the likelihood of having such behaviour in 2020. This was done in a dedicated workshop;

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 32 After the snapshots were developed within each of the four groups they were circulated to all project partners and IMS

project partners had to assess all features within each snapshot scenario with respect to the likelihood and desirability of these becoming reality by 2020.

or likely to happen by 2020. The results of this exercise were used then as an input for the development of the IMS2020 Vision during a vision building workshop,

and somewhat likely to happen by 2020 (likelihood>2). Based on the results of the vision building workshop a first draft of the IMS2020 Vision was developed by JRC-IPTS.

The refined research topics were then prioritised in terms of (i) a timeline between 2010 and 2020,(ii) inter-dependencies between research topics (those

These start from the implementation of the identified research topics and supporting actions between 2011 and 2013

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 33 1 3 years and to be concluded in 3 7 years;

and (ii) actions (RAS in Fig. 4) that are of mid-term implementation (7 10 years), with a wider focus and linked to the research topics,

and 2020 to enable the European commission to identify and select research priorities to be funded in collaboration with the IMS region in this timeline.

Results are currently being used to develop further framework programme (FP) 7 calls and in shaping future RI calls from 2014.

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 34 calls, as well as workshops with industry.

Activities conducted within IMS 2020 Guiding principles for global foresight Understanding interconnected innovation systems Responsiveness towards diverse languages and cultures Capacity to reconfigure international networks A glocal impact orientation

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 35 The use of online tools was important to enable partners to collaborate across the project within dedicated spaces

T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 36 devoted to the joint selection of variables to be used

and future EU calls after 2014. At the same time, the way in which the scenarios, the shared vision,

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 37 Acknowledgements The views expressed are those of the author

'needs and the briefing stage of public private partnership projects, International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 513 521.3 A. Alsan, M. A. Oner, An integrated

integrated foresight management model, Foresight 5 (2)( 2003) 33 45.4 A. Alsan, M. A. Oner, Comparison of national foresight studies by integrated foresight management model, Futures

36 (2004) 889 902.5 O. Saritas, M. A. Oner, Systemic analysis of UK foresight results:

joint application of integrated management model and roadmapping, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (2004) 27 65.6 O. Saritas, Systems thinking for Foresight,(Ph d. thesis), Manchester

Toward integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (2004) 287 303.8 T. Ko nno la, A. Salo, V. Brummer, Foresight for European Coordination:

Developing National Priorities for the Forest-Based Sector Technology platform, International Journal of Technology management 54 (4.)(2011.

Community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises, Futures 36 (2004) 45 65.10 C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R

(2)( 2012) 191 207.12 C. Cagnin, D. Loveridge, O. Saritas, FTA and equity: new approaches to governance, Futures 43 (3)( 2011.

13 A. Salo, T. Ko nno la, M. Hjelt, Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections from the Finish food and drink industry, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2004) 70 88.14 T. Ko nno la, T

. Ahlqvist, A. Eerola, S. Kivisaari, R. Koivisto, Management of foresight portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organisation, Technological Analysis and Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.15 T. Ko nno la, V. Brummer, A. Salo

, Diversity in foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, Technological forecasting and Social Change 74 (2007) 608 626.16 L a. Costanzo, Strategic foresight in a high-speed environment, Futures 36 (2004

) 219 235.17 C. Cagnin, E. Amanatidou, M. Keenan, Orienting EU innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play, Science and Public policy 39 (2012) 140

152.18 G. Reger, Technology foresight in companies: from an indicator to a network and process perspective, Technology analysis and Strategic management 13 (4)( 2001) 533 553.19 F. J. Contractor, P. Lorange (Eds.

Cooperative Strategies in International Business Joint ventures and Technology Partnerships Between Firms, 2nd ed.,Pergamon, Amsterdam, 2002.20 C a. Bartlett, S. Ghoshal, Managing Across Borders the Transnational

glocalization/grobalization and something/nothing, Sociological Theory 21 (3)( 2003) 193 209.22 M. Weber, Foresight and adaptive planning as complementary elements in anticipatory policy-making:

Reflexive governance For Sustainable development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2006, http://www. eelggarenvironment. com/Bookentry contents. lasso?

Insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis and Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 1 232.24 T. Ko nno la, Innovation roadmap:

Contributed paper for the 2007 conference on corporate R&d (CONCORD: new and emerging issues in corporate R&d, JRC-IPTS, 8-9/10/07, 2007.25 M. Taish, J. Cassina, B. Cammarino, S. Terzi, N

Proceedings from the IMS2020 Summer School o Sustainable Manufacturing, 26 28 may 2010, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2010.28 E. Dall, C. Cagnin, Regional foresight a case

experiences from the preparation of an international research programme, Technological forecasting and Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495.30 D. White, J. Fortune, Current practice in project management an empirical

study, International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 1 11.31 E. Osipova, P. E. Eriksson, Balancing control and flexibility in joint risk management:

lessons learned from two construction projects, International Journal of Project Management 31 (3)( 2013) 391 399.32 C. O. Cruz, R c.

Marques, Flexible contracts to cope with uncertainty in public private partnerships, International Journal of Project Management 31 (3)( 2013) 473 483.33 M. Mani, K. Lyons, R

The IMS Summer School Manufacturing Strategy First Edition 2010: Sustainable Manufacturing, 2010.34 D. Klimkeit, Organizational context and collaboration on international projects:

the case of a professional service firm, International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 366 377.

C. Cagnin, T. Ko nno la/Futures 59 (2014) 27 38 38

ART9.pdf

Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: Impact on policy and decision-making The 2006 FTA INTERNATIONAL SEVILLE SEMINAR Fabiana Scapolo a,, Alan L. Porter b c, d, Michael Rader e a European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre, Brussels, Belgium b R&d for Search Technology, Inc

.,Norcross, GA, United states c Industrial & Systems Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA d Public policy, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA e

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe and Karlsruhe Institute of technology, Karlsruhe, Germany Received 29 february 2008 Introduction The contributions included in this special issue build on material presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA

) 1 that took place on the 28th and 29th of September 2006. The Seminar was sponsored

This International Seminar was founded on the success of the joint EU US Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) that was organised by JRC-IPTS in 2004.

and the next conference is scheduled for the 16 17 october 2008 in Seville. This biannual event is becoming a reference within the FTA COMMUNITIES to increase understanding of the advances occurring in the field of FTA for academics

Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 457 461 Corresponding author.

10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.03.001 The six articles included in this Special issue were presented in 2006. The overarching theme was the impact of fta approaches on policy and decision-making,

methods and approaches Four of the six contributions address a specific theme of the Seminar on the evolution over the years of FTA assumptions, methods and approaches.

In fact, in the past 10 to 15 years, FTAACTIVITIES havemultiplied across a wide spectrum of settings and at different levels.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 457 461 The contribution describes methodologies and approaches developed for the purpose.

and learning Another very important theme addressed by the FTA 2006 International Seminar relates to FTA evaluation, impact and learning.

and goal attainment levels. 3. FTA on specific issues Two themes of the 2006 FTA International Seminar put FTA into contexts.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 457 461 thus advance the existing literature, on how the business sector (e g. industry, industrial associations and foundations) uses FTA TOOLS for a variety of reasons.

and he addresses the above listed shortcomings. 4. Concluding remarks We note some of the issues presented in the concluding session of the 2006 FTA INTERNATIONAL SEVILLE SEMINAR.

These stem from an address4 given by The chair and a Member of the Technical Committee of the 2006 FTA Seminar

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 457 461 Fabiana Scapolo: She works at the European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre.

Previously, Fabiana was leading for more than 4 years the Foresight activities implemented by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (DG JRC-IPTS) located in Seville (Spain.

and books, including Tech Mining (Wiley, 2005). He focuses on text mining for technology intelligence, forecasting and assessment.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 457 461

ART90.pdf

Towards Innovation Foresight: Two empirical case studies on future TV experiences for/by users Katrien De Moor a b, 1,,

(and even hyped) in the literature is a Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:

Available online 21 january 2014 Keywords: Innovation Foresight User involvement User practices Future TV experiences Interaction A b s T R A c T This paper discusses the need for a shift towards more Foresight-based inclusive innovation processes

and contribute to the detection of potential user/societal needs and possible unexpected forms of use. 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

and received funding from the European union Seventh Framework programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n°246016.

w ww. elsevier. co m/loc ate/fu tu r es 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 40 Although in theory, such inclusive processes aim to strengthen the role and input of users into innovation,

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 41 IF aims to go beyond the‘here and now 'and is situated at the intersection of Foresight, user/market research and humancenntre product design.

Their role was to evaluate the ideas in terms of market potential(‘now'and‘in five years),

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 42 survey was taken (end 2009) in percentage of Flemish digital TV-viewers.

The second column‘market potential+5y'indicates the experts'mean estimated potential five years from the moment of surveying (end 2014.

and the last column‘implemented 5y'indicates the number of respondents that thinks this idea will be implemented effectively in five years'time.

but the majority of the experts see them implemented within five years'time anyway. The open source, surveillance and smart home ideas can be considered as the most innovative ideas

The starting point for this study was the observation that this very popular medium has been the subject of rapid technological evolution over the last few years.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 43 the TV AUDIENCE, this simplicity is however under pressure. As a result, it is crucial to reflect on current and future viewing practices

2030). ) 3. 2. 1. Methodological approach A multi-method approach was used to stimulate users'creative and imaginative potential in the IF process.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 44 thoughts, comments and ideas (see Fig. 1 on the right.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 45 Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the developed positive and negative personas.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 46 in it, but considers herself as a non-expert.

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 47 stimulate users'imagination and to empower them to reflect on possible and preferable future developments in the context of TV experiences.

Why‘open innovation'is old wine in new bottles, International Journal of Innovation Management 13 (2009) 715 736.3 C. Cagnin, D. Loveridge, O. Saritas, FTA

new approaches to governance, Futures 43 (2010) 279 291.4 P. Warnke, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument:

Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer-verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 71 87.5 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, International Journal of Foresight

and Innovation policy (IJFIP) 1 (2004) 4 32.6 C. Cagnin, E. Amanatidou, M. Keenan, Orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play, in:

/Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 48 7 L. Haddon, E. Mante, B. Sapio, K.-H. Kommonen, L. Fortunati, A e. Kant

2005.8 E. Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005.9 R. Williams, D. Edge, The social shaping of Technology research Policy 25 (1996) 865

899.10 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight 7 (2005) 31 47.11 K. De Moor, O. Saritas, Innovation Foresight for living labs, in:

Proceedings of Yeditepe International research Conference on Foresight (Yircof 2009), Istanbul, Turkey, 2009.12 O. Saritas, Innovation Foresight and Foresightful Innovation in Europe and beyond, in:

Proceedings Participatory Design Conference, 2008, pp. 186 189.14 J. Schot, A. Rip, The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technological forecasting and Social Change 54 (1997) 268

521.15 P. Kristensson, A. Gustafsson, T. Archer, Harnessing the creative potential among users, Journal of Product innovation Management 21 (2004) 4 14.16 H. Rohracher, From passive consumers

Strategies and Limitations from a Socio-Technical Perspective, Profil-Verlag, Munich, 2005, pp. 9 35.17 M. Borup, N. Brown, K. Konrad, H. Van

Lente, The Sociology of expectations in Science and Technology, Technology analysis & Strategic management 18 (2006) 285 298.18 P. den Hertog, R. Smits, The Co-evolution of Innovation theory, Innovation Practice

Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis, Science and Public policy 37 (2010) 51 61.20 C. Lettl, User involvement competence for radical innovation, Journal of Engineering and Technology management

24 (2007) 53 75.21 R. W. Veryzer, B. Borja de Mozota, The impact of user-oriented design on new product development:

an examination of fundamental relationships, Journal of Product innovation Management 22 (2005) 128 143.22 S. Dimitri, M. Katrien De, M. Lieven De, E. Tom

Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, 2010.23 E. Von Hippel, Lead users:

a source of novel product concepts, Management Science 32 (1986) 791 805.24 B. Katrien, S. Dimitri, M. Lieven De, Adoption versus use diffusion

Proceedings of the 8th international interactive conference on Interactive TV & Video, ACM, Tampere, Finland,(2010), pp. 15 22.25 E. Von Hippel, The dominant role of users

Proceedings of the Third international conference on Human-centred software engineering (HCSE'10), Springer-verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 111 118.29 W. Gaver, A. Boucher, S

. Pennington, B. Walker, Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty, Interactions 11 (2004) 53 56.30 F. Sleeswijk Visser, Bringing the Everyday Life of People into Design

a literature review, ejov Special issue on Living Labs 10 (2008. K. De Moor et al.//Futures 59 (2014) 39 49 49

ART91.pdf

The roles of fta in improving performance measurement systems to enable alignment between business strategy and operations: Insights from three practical cases Sidnei Vieira Marinho a,,

despite the awareness that both researchers and executives have that organisational performance is linked directly to an alignment between Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 A r T I C L E I N F O

Available online 30 january 2014 Keywords: Performance measurement systems FTA Strategy Implementation A b s T R A c T Despite the growing number of publications on firms'performance measurement systems (PMS), consensus

The authors conclude by highlighting specific ways in which FTA can be integrated in the PMS proposed. 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

These actions S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 51 together represent the strategy translated into operational actions,

C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 52 into account the availability and facility to access information,

S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 53 system followed the designed phases and steps.

S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 54 attending the communities which depend on such social projects.

and projections for the years to come. 3. 3. An example from the not for profit sector 3. 3. 1. Rationale The third case was selected due to the growing importance of the third sector in Brazil and worldwide.

but the sustainability of the project is expected to happen only in five years. This means that there is a need to establish clear priorities with deadlines

and to enable the community to monitor success during the next five years. This should stimulate motivation

These are critical to enable it to become flexible S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 55 and adaptive,

like any other BSC, most often short-term (usually five years or less). Also, it does not allow disruptive

C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 56 Foresight also supports the firm's and its stakeholders'ability to develop a joint vision

S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 57 intelligence systems, direction setting, priority setting, strategy formulation, marketing, organisational change,

) S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 58 Annex 2. Casual relationship diagram.

Management Decision 44 (2006) 1441 1460.2 M. Beer, R. A. Eisenstat, The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning, MIT Sloan Management Review

41 (2000) 29 40.3 A. Raps, Implementing strategy, Strategic Finance June (2004) 49 54.4 H. Mintzberg, The fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review

72 (1994) 107 114. S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 59 5 S v. Marinho, L. M. S. Campos, P m. Selig, Critical analysis

of performance measurement systems as a form of implanting strategy throughout an organization, in: Annual British Academy of Management Conference, 2008.6 F. Okumus, A framework to implement strategies in organizations, Management Decision 41 (2003) 871 882.7 D c. Hambrick, A a

. J. Cannella, Strategy implementation as substance and selling, Academy of Management Executive III (1989) 278 285.8 M. Freedman,

The genius is in the implementation, Journal of Business strategy 24 (2003) 26 31.9 L. E. Bossidy, L. R. Charan, Execution:

The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Crown Business, New york, 2002.10 R. Kaplan, D. Norton, Execution Premium, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2008.11

An Appraisal and Agenda for Future research, Handbook of Strategic management, Blackwell Business, Malden, Massachusetts, 2001, pp. 602 626.12 R. Kaplan, D. Norton, Building a Strategy-Focused

what is still to be explored, Journal of Management 32 (2006) 673 719.15 K. A. Meers, Contextual barriers to strategic implementation:

an examination of frontline perspectives, Journal of American Academy of Business 11 (2007) 11 16. 16 O. Furrer, H. Thomas, A. Goussevskaia, The structure and evolution of the strategic management field:

a content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research, International Journal of Management Reviews 10 (2008) 1 23.17 V. C. Prieto, M m.

Carvalho, A a. Fischmann, Ana'lise comparativa de modelos de alinhamento estrate'gico, Produc¸a o 19 (2009) 317 331.18 H. Mintzberg

uma propuesta metodolo'gica, Revista de Economia Pu'blica, Social e Cooperativa 57 (2007) 117 149.20 M. Grasseova',Utilization of balanced

scorecard in public administration, Revista academiei fortelor terestre 1 (2010) 49 57.21 S m. Hronec, Vital Sign:

a development guide, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 17 (1997) 692 704.23 R. Kaplan, D. Norton, Strategy Maps:

D. Norton, Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system, Harvard Business Review 74 (1996) 75 85.26 S f. Lee, A s. Ko, Building balanced scorecard

Managerial Auditing Journal 15 (2000) 68 76.27 J. Ogilvy, P. Schwartz, Plotting Your Scenarios, Global Business Network (GBN), San francisco, 2004.28 C. W. Choo, Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational learning, Information Research 7

(1)( 2001), Available at: http://Informationr. net/ir/7-1/paper112. html. 29 R. Kaplan, D. Norton, Having trouble with your strategy?

Then map it, Harvard Business Review 78 (2000) 167 176.30 A. Neely, R. Austin, Measuring operations performance:

Performance Measurement Conference, Cambridge, 2000.31 S. Tonchia, Linking performance measurement system to strategic and organizational choices, International Journal of Business Performance 2 (2000) 15

European Management Journal 16 (1998) 517 528.33 A. Neely, C. Adams, M. Kennerly, The Performance Prism:

The Commonkads Methodology, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002.36 B. J. Witcher, R. Butterworth, Hoshin kanri at Hewlett-packard, Journal of General Management 25 (2000) 70

police management in japanese-owned UK subsidiaries, Journal of Management Studies 38 (2001) 651 674.38 J. A. Brimson, J. Antos, J. Collins,

and Public policy (2012)( forthcoming. 41 C. Cagnin, D. Loveridge, O. Saritas, FTA and equity: new approaches to governance, Futures 43 (2011) 279 291.42 K. Koschatzky, Foresight as a governance concept at the interface between global challenges and regional innovation potentials, European Planning

Studies 13 (2005) 619 639.43 M. S. Gertler, D. A. Wolfe, Local social knowledge management: community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises, in:

Paper Prepared for the STRATA ETAN Expert Group action on Mobilising the Regional foresight Potential for an Enlarged European union, 2002.44 C. Shelton, Quantum leaps, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997.45 C. Cagnin,

Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010, http://dx. doi. org/10.2791/4223eur 24364 EN, ISSN 1018

lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues, Science and Public policy (2012)( forthcoming. 49 T. Ko nno la, A. Salo, C. Cagnin, V. Carabias, E. Vilkkumaa, Facing the future:

scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning, Science and Public policy (2012)( forthcoming. 50 C. Bezold, C. Bettles, C. Juech, E. Michelson, J. Peck, K. Wilkins, Foresight for Smart Globalization:

lessons from scenario and roadmapping process on manufacturing systems, Futures (2014)( forthcoming. 52 M. G. Lipe, S. E. Salterio, The balanced scorecard:

judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures, Accounting Review 75 (2000) 283 298.53 H r. Maturana, F. J. G. Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition:

fail, Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement (1999) 6 11 (special edition. 59 D. Otley, Performance measurement:

a framework for management control systems research, Management Accounting Research 10 (1999) 363 382.60 H. Norreklit, The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions, Management Accounting

Research 11 (2000) 65 88.61 B. Richmond, A New Language for Levaraging Scorecard-Driven Learning, Balanced Scorecard Report, HBS Publishing, 2001.62 D

The Design and Implementation of a Performance Measurement System in Local government, University of Auckland, Auckland, New zealand, 2000.

S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 60 63 H. Akkermans, K. E. van Oorschot, Developing a balanced scorecard

Planning 30 (1997) 242 253.67 S. Brignall, The unbalanced scorecard: a social and environmental critique, in:

combining external and internal scenarios to create strategic foresight, Management Decision 43 (2005) 360 381.69 M. J. Epstein,

from tableaux de bord to balanced scorecard, European Management Journal 16 (1998) 190 203.70 B. J. Witcher, V. S. Chau, Balanced scorecard

dynamic capabilities for managing strategic fit, Management Decision 45 (2007) 518 538.71 G. Walker, R. Macdonald, Designing and implementing an HR scorecard, Human Resource

Management 20 (2001) 365 377.72 N. G. Olve, J. Roy, M. Wetter, Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, Wiley, Chichester, West sussex-UK, 1999.73 W. O. Hagood,

L. Friedman, Using the balanced scorecard to measure the performance of your HR information system, Public Personnel Management 31 (2002) 543 557.74 D. Andriessen, Intellectual capital valuation and measurement:

classifying the state-of-the-art, Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (2004) 230 242.75 A. Wu, The integration between balanced scorecard and intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (2005) 267.76

Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, 2008. S v. Marinho, C. Cagnin/Futures 59 (2014) 50 61 61

< Back - Next >