Introduction New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis The 2004 EU US seminarb Fabiana Scapolo European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
organised by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) of European commission's Directorate General Joint research Centre.
the purpose of the analysis (awareness raising, envisioning, consensus building, corporate technology planning, etc; the reliability of source information;
The discussion also addressed the wider issues of the broadening perspectives that are being introduced to future work beyond technology and its development.
and more focused on how technology should be used to meet emerging future needs. The longstanding issue of the need for involvement (and engagement) by decision makers in the study were stressed also.
and constraining the development of emerging technologies, failing to use available techniques to encourage culture change in stakeholder organisations
It was suggested that maybe technology foresight could learn something from the past 20 30 years in socioeconomic study of science and technology,
Lock ins occur early in technological trajectories, so you have to be able to detect them.
the authors of the papers suggest a number of developments such as a more systematic integration of new technology (especially ICT) to allow interaction
The second paper by Porter illustrates a technique to carry out quick empirical technology analyses based on wide availability of rich science
and technology publication and patent abstract databases to better inform technology management. This paper describes, through a case study on solid oxide fuel cells, the value of quick text mining profiles of emerging technologies.
One of the main advantages of this technique (i e. QTIP-Quick Technology intelligence Processes) is that it allows the conducting of a certain technology analysis within only a few days
instead than few months by taking advantage of four factors enabling the QTIP technique: instant database access, analytical software, automated routines,
and how tech mining outcomes could be used for technology management and on how the utility of outcomes can impact the different forms of FTA (i e. technology foresight, technology assessment, technology forecasting, technology and product roadmapping).
In the paper entitled dthe role of Scanning in Open Intelligent Systemst, Patton describes the system in place in SRI CONSULTING BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE to scan the environment
The two following articles, focusing on Technology assessment (TA) and, using as case study nanotechnology, stress the pressure that new technology developments are posing to the field of TA.
Therefore, in order to continue to be effective, TA must in some cases revisit its approaches and toolbox of techniques to ensure that outcomes can be taken up in the decision-making process.
and understand the dynamics of emerging technologies. The article introduces the importance of understanding and tracing the role of dirreversibilitiest of technological changes (i e. expectations that guide the research activities of scientists and firms,
and the process of agenda building. A three-level framework on the case of nanotubes is presented to analyse and visualise the dynamics in three interrelated context:
(and enabling technologies requires the introduction and use of new methods. The article illustrates the use of roadmapping as a tool for TA contributions to the sustainability assessment of emerging technologies.
The paper by Boyack proposes the use of information and visualisation techniques as supporting tools for FTA especially to assess technological development in the short term.
It discusses the questions and validity of the analogy between technological evolution and biological evolution
but considering the dnew perspectivet of the impact of new capabilities that are provided by the Information technologies and the convergence of information and molecular technologies.
The paper shows that concepts applied to biological evolution are applicable, through useful metaphors, to economics and technology assessment.
Social studies of technology; Policy strategy Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 Corresponding author.
One of the industrial participants spelt out very explicitly that by participating in the process his firm became aware of a mis-perception of the future potentials of the technological trajectory they had pursued so far
Decision-making in relation to innovation and new technology be it from a company's or from a public policy perspective, is confronted with the need to navigate increasingly complex decision landscapes.
and communication technologies has given rise to an internationalisation of research and innovation. This obviously makes the anticipation of future developments and their consequences more difficult than ever before.
Making choices about the directions of new emerging technological options is very difficult in the early stages of development
uncertainty and interactivity. 1 Even if certain 1 In particular evolutionary and Neo-Schumpeterian economics as well as Social Studies of Technology have made important contributions 2. 464 E. A Eriksson,
K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 tendances lourdes can be identified like the development of electricity and propulsion technologies starting in the late 19th century and information
and communication technologies in the present era, the ability to predict at an early stage which particular pathways
achievements and deficits In the light of insights from research on innovation and technological change, much foresight thinking and practice have struck us as somewhat over-simplistic and in particular over-optimistic in its hopes, e g. with respect to the ability to mobilise innovation system stakeholders to act
and bring it closer to a contemporary understanding of processes of innovation and technological change. Over the last ten to fifteen years
Foresight has become particularly important in science and technology policy 3, 4, but also in relation to sustainability and other long-term, uncertainty-ridden policy issues.
First of all, it has moved away from a forecastingtyyp focus on science and technology to an incorporation of first market and then also increasingly social considerations.
465 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 distinct from‘technology forecasting'and the like. 3 This broadening
of the scope of forward-looking exercises can be interpreted as a reflection of the abandoning of linear models of technological change and the adoption of a systemic understanding of socio-technical change.
one can observe similar developments in technology assessment where the growing prominence of social, economic, environmental and ethical concerns related to scientific and technological developments has led to a strengthening of participatory and constructive approaches 8, 9. Here,
and 1980s were influenced strongly by the linear idea that the consensus achieved in Delphi could serve as a forecast and thus as a foundation for taking preparatory actions to exploit emerging technologies.
A similarly linear perspective but from a different angle holds for the critical technologies"studies conducted in the US, in France and The netherlands.
and combined it with the idea of being able to secure through national policy a leading edge in selected technologies 10.
also earlier technology forecasting approaches like the large Delphi studies introduced in Japan in the early seventies
and services like fire protection, rather than in the context of innovation and technology development.)8 See in particular the online guide of the EU Forlearn project (http://forlearn. jrc. es/guide/0 home/index. htm),
and technology it must first be observed that many of the neat conceptual distinctions useful for,
Still we have found it quite practical in RTI policy to distinguish between robust and adaptive technology options
, respectively, technologies that can be seen to be useful for a wide range of future conditions
For example, many technologies embody characteristics of both robustness and adaptivity, i e. in general terms they are beneficial in all scenarios,
In fact, many technologies tend to have a double-edged character, because they can be beneficial under certain circumstances and detrimental under others.
and telecommunication technologies, are expected to have a very positive impact within an optimistic information society scenario. The same technology,
however, can be abused in a‘big brother'type of scenario when used for invading the privacy sphere of individuals.
For instance, they can refer to the promotion of individual technologies (e g. an R&d programme) as well as to the structural settings of the innovation systems (e g. liberalisation of energy supply.
In particular the increased modularity of technological solutions that is a key tenet of the network economy is an argument for considering elementary options as more loosely coupled.
and in technology and innovation policy they are criticised sometimes on the ground that they fail to provide the commitment necessary for, e g.,
, business actors to involve themselves with an emerging technology, which is in turn often a precondition for it to mature through learning-by-doing
, new energy technologies through early policy commitment 27. Adaptive planning does not mean to keep all options open as long as possible.
Adaptive options in technology and innovation policy should be seen not only as laboratory RTD, but can also include pilots
Niche Management 25 and Transition Management 26.14 FANTASIE Forecasting and Assessment of New Transport Technologies and Systems and their Impact on the Environment,
These projects focused on strategy and programme development in research, technology and innovation policy, and stressed the interdependenciie with other policy areas and other innovation actors.
technology and innovation policy at national and regional level. 21 These projects stress in particular the need to understand Adaptive foresight as a continuous monitoring,
see Andersen et al. 35.18 FISTERA Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area was funded by the European commission between 2002
A predecessor project at national level was conducted in the area of transport technology policy 43.472 E. A. Eriksson
and assess future developments in their socioeconomic and technological dimensions. At later stages however, when individual actors need to make up theirminds about their strategies and concrete decisions,
on Information society Technologies in the European research area) 49.475 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 identifying a hierarchy of driving variables such that some are seen as more fundamental/independent and others as more derived.
for instance in terms of‘windows of opportunity'for introducing a new technology or starting a policy initiative. By developing consistent pathways, the backcasting exercise represents a second level of testing the credibility of a scenario.
Each of the scenarios and pathways can be characterised in terms of technologies and policies that have been realised.
in order to assess and select those technology options and corresponding policies that promise to be either robust or adaptive (or both).
These kinds of insights should then serve as an input for today's policy-makers to prioritise, for instance, emerging technologies and design corresponding policies.
but at best be repeated every few years, for instance in line with an update of the overall technology and innovation policy strategy.
These projects cover a range of different application areas like production systems, transport and mobility systems, regional innovation systems, information and communication technologies and energy technologies.
The notion of adaptivity seems also very relevant from the perspective of developing countries that strongly depend on foreign markets and technologies.
References 1 D. Collingridge, The Social control of Technology Pinter, London, 1980.2 K. M. Weber, The Neo-Schumpeterian element in the sociological analysis of innovation, in:
Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy Technology assessment Methods and Impacts, Springer, Berlin, 2004.9 S. Joss, S. Belluci (Eds.
Participatory Technology assessment, European Perspectives, CSD, London, 2002.480 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482
-Project FANTASIE, Stockholm, FOA, 1999.32 H. Van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, J. Shires, A. Eriksson, Options to support the introduction of new technologies and their implications on transport policy
I. Miles, Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (FISTERA), Key Findings, IPTS, Sevilla, 2006.37 M. Weber, R. Hoogma, B. Lane, J. Schot, Experimenting with Sustainable
Transport Technologies. A workbook for Strategic Niche Management University of Twente/IPTS, Enschede, 1999 Sevilla. 38 R. Hoogma, K. M. Weber, B. Elzen, Integrated long-term strategies to induce regime shifts to sustainability:
Strategische Leitlinien Technology and innovation for wealth creation and societal responsibility. Strategic guidelines, Report to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology BMVIT, Vienna, 2007.42 City of Vienna, Wiener Strategie für Forschung, Technologie und
Innovation Vienna Strategy for Research, Technology and Innovation, Vienna, 2007.43 K. M. Weber, A. Geyer, D. Schartinger, P. Wagner, Zukunft der Mobilität in Österreich.
Konsequenzen für die Technologiepolitik, Research report, Austrian Research centres, Seibersdorf, 2002.44 C. Freeman Technology policy and Economic Performance:
Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London, 1987.45 B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation, Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.46 A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B
and project interrelations, Phd thesis, University of Technology Vienna, Vienna, 2007. Dr. E. Anders Eriksson received his Phd In operations Research from KTH in Stockholm in 1986.
Dr. K. Matthiasweber is head of Technology policy Department at Austrian Research centres systems research. Over the past years, he has been contributing to and leading several foresight exercises at European, national, regional and sectoral level,
and advising government on matters of research, technology and innovation policy. Apart from foresight methodologies, his main research interests are in the governance of research and innovation systems, in the transformation of large socio-technical systems towards sustainability
Experiences from the preparation of an international research program Ville Brummer a, 1, Totti Könnölä b, 2, Ahti Salo a a Systems analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, P o box
1100, FIN-02015 TKK, Finland b Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Joint research Centre-European commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, s n
, 1, 2), in the recognition that the engagement of stakeholders from several countries may help anticipate scientific, technological and societal developments, for example.
however, may foster high expectations concerning shared visionbuilldin and formation of new research and technology development (RTD) networks.
we examine issues in the organization of foresight activities within European coordination tools such as Integrated Projects, Networks of Excellence, ERA NETS, European Technology platforms and Technology initiatives
each with a focus on a specific field of science and/or technology, for the purpose of supporting mutual learning, opening-up of national innovation systems and the development of new collaborative forms of European RTD funding.
it can also contribute to the development of complementary value networks based on different technological competencies 3. Broadly seen,
Drawing upon experiences from earlier collaboration with the Systems analysis Laboratory at Helsinki University of Technology in the development of a Scandinavian co-funded Wood Material Science Research program 16, the project plan for the Woodwisdom
as well as the research team at TKK (Helsinki University of Technology) which was responsible for most activities in the design and implementation of the process (i e.,
The promising experiences from thewoodwisdom-Net consultation process, together with those from related processes for the Forest-Based Sector Technology platform 3, suggest that further work on the development of consultation processes within European coordination
Acknowledgements This research has been supported by the Academy of Finland and National Technology agency of Finland. We also wish to thank Dr. Leena Paavilainen for her major contribution to the design of the foresight process.
References 1 A. Webster, Technologies in transition, policies in transition: foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (6 7)( 1999) 413 421.2 T. Jewell, International foresight's contribution to globalisation, Foresight The Journal of Futures studies, Strategic thinking and Policy
developing national priorities for the forest-based sector technology platform, Int. J. Technol. Manag. special issue on technology foresight in press. 494 V. Brummer et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 4 TFAMWG Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis:
D. Roessner, Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods, Res. Policy 29 (4 5)( 2000) 657 678.6 J. P. Salmenkaita, A. Salo, Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies, Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manag. 14 (2)( 2002) 183 200.7 A. Salo, J. P. Salmenkaita, Embedded foresight in RTD programs, Int. J. Technol.
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-20137-EN, Seville, 2002.12 H. Prange, Technology and innovation policiers in the European systemofmulti-level
governance, Technikfolgenabschätzung Theorie und Praxis 12 (2)( 2003) 11 20.13 S. Kuhlmann, J. Edler, Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe:
Change 70 (2003) 619 637.14 J. S. Metcalfe, Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, Camb.
2005) is Researcher and doctoral student at the Systems analysis Laboratory of Helsinki University of Technology, with research interests in foresight, decision support systems and strategic decision making.
He has published in journals such as Technological forecasting and Social Change and International Journal of Technology management. Totti Könnölä (M. Sc. 2001, D. Tech. 2006) is Researcher at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville.
Previously, he has been Senior researcher at the VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Researcher at the Systems analysis Laboratory in the Helsinki University of Technology and Expert in Gaia Group Oy
a Finnish sustainability consultancy. He has published in journals such as Journal of Business strategy and the Environment;
Ahti Salo (M. Sc. 1987, D. Tech. 1992) is Professor at the Systems analysis Laboratory with research interests in decision analysis, decision support systems, technology foresight, and risk management.
and evaluation activities, including the joint foresight project Finnsight 2015 of the Academy of Finland and the National Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes),
Methodologies and selected applications Knut Blind Regulation and Innovation Competence Center Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management
In contrast to the longer tradition of impact assessment of Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Berlin University of Technology, Faculty
there has been a longer tradition of regulatory impact assessments in the context of technology assessment 6. A rather new
because of the assumption that standards are part of the technological infrastructure which is provided by public institutions e g. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST.
The focus of this paper will be neither on ex post impact assessment of regulations and standards nor on ex ante impact assessments of specific options of regulatory instruments.
but also national research agencies and businesses, in their efforts to cope with the increasing complexity of new technologies and decision environments, in an increased techno-economic competition worldwide 9. Since the 1990s,
and to detect new technological opportunities, identify a choice of technological opportunities, set policy, e g. regulatory,
priorities and assess potential impacts and chances, discuss desirable and undesirable futures, prospect the potential impacts of current research, technology and regulatory policy, focus selectively on economic, technological,
social and ecological areas as well as to start monitoring and detailed research in these fields. Consequently, foresight activities can
whereas traditional technology foresight studies look for new promising fields in science and technology or new trends or needs in the market.
and policy-makers responsible for regulatory regimes but not for science and technology policy in the narrower sense to identify future requirements for regulations
but also emerging technologies, sectors or markets in order to shape pro-actively innovation-promoting regulatory framework conditions, which are crucial for the competitiveness of national or regional innovation systems.
and often part of larger foresight exercises driven by stakeholders of science and technology policies. Moreover national SDOS, including some in the USA
and are put in the context of possible evaluation and assessment technologies. Table 1 Evaluation matrix:
matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment
Benchmarking Financing R&d Provision of R&d infrastructure Technology transfer and innovation diffusion Legal frameworks (IPRS, standards and regulation) Integrated projects Networks of excellence Methodology:
indicator-based approaches surveys Delphi studies. 3. Methodologies 3. 1. Indicator-based approaches 3. 1. 1. Introduction and definition New developments in science and technology
Changes and dynamics in science and technology can be identified and traced by different indicators. These indicators allow the creation of comparisons between scientific and technological fields, between countries, organisations,
patent indicators are suited better to perform regulatory foresight exercises in the sense of identifying dynamic fields of technology.
Patents indicate the emergence of possible technologies, which are likely to be introduced later into future markets.
The shortcoming of patents is that completely new fields of technology like biotechnology and software at first triggered off discussions about their patentability,
However, the use of time series of patent applications either differentiated by fields of technology, especially high technology,
Since there are numerous regulatory challenges triggered by the dynamics in science and technology one has to differentiate the analysis in those fields of high dynamics.
and technology. 3. 1. 2. Examples So far, there are not many exercises which use science
Blind 25 shows, based on international and inter-sectoral cross-section data, that the output of formal standardisation bodies can be explained significantly by the patent applications as a reliable indicator for the dynamics in the respective technologies.
it can be derived that dynamics in technology is reflected at least in standardisation activities as part of the regulatory framework in the European union.
which confirm the relationship between the dynamics of technology and the adaptation of the regulatory framework based on quantitative approaches, are missing.
However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the regulatory framework has been adapted to the emergence of new technologies,
However, the proved link between science and technology, on the one hand, and changes in existing regulations or new regulations, on the other hand, underlines that the former can in general be used to determine possible challenges for the regulatory framework in the future.
Furthermore, not all new developments in science and technology, but especially those with possible impacts on health, safety, the environment and on the functioning of markets require an adjustment of the regulatory framework.
However, the identification of those regulation-relevant new technologies or new specifications within mature technologies is only just beginning
The scope of science-and technology-based indicator approaches is certainly in detecting possible fields
Further more technology specific surveys focusing on the future regulatory requirements to react to progress in science
and technology and changes in markets have not been conducted. In the area of standards as parts of the regulatory system
which allows future needs for standards in an emerging technology to be identified. Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.
they derive that in a new emerging technology at first terminology standards, then measurement and testing standards and only later in the innovation cycle quality,
and lead to representative results, the data can be combined with indicator-based approaches representing the universe in science and technology.
Regulation was included in a set of possible obstacles, like lack of capital or human resources, for the development of science and technology.
In Japan, the regulatory framework in communication technology is compared also crucial to most other technological areas 47.
The relatively small importance of the regulatory framework for the future development of new issues in science and technology compared to other policy instruments is confirmed in the follow-up studies,
but also in the field business regarding e-commerce-related issues. 4 In summary, Delphi exercises focusing on the future of science and technology take the general regulatory framework into account as one kind of obstacle,
However, the role of regulatory frameworks for the realisation of progress in future sciences and technologies compared to other types of obstacles is limited rather.
and to assess the future impacts of regulations in rather future sciences and technologies. However, surveying the activities in the last years,
Table 2 presents the assessment of the 21 telecommunication-related technologies expected to diffuse mostly within the next ten years.
technology capable of achieving both privacy protection and verification. In contrast the change of e-commerce-based retail shops from simple goods sellers to services (consulting, agent, etc.
those technology fields were identified which are characterised by a high relevance of regulations as obstacles or as required policy measure.
needs for standardisation in information and communication technology (Source: NO-REST ITU Survey Fraunhofer ISI 2005)( 1=low importance to 5=high importance) Year Importance R&d Regulation Deregulation Standardisation Widespread use
. 20 Widespread use of online seal-free (signature-free) document preparation services for various official documents such as contracts which are provided via a network based on security technology capable of achieving both privacy
38 3. 19 Development of technology capable of automatically detecting viruses and automatically producing corresponding vaccines. 2010 4. 69 4. 03 2. 87 2. 47 3
exceeds 90%of all component parts. 2011 4. 16 4. 17 3. 97 2. 17 2. 83 Widespread use of a security technology that automatically monitors illicit
In addition, both regulation and self regulation loose significantly in importance the more in the future a new technology might be realised.
which should include relevant technologies and areas requiring different types of new regulations or an adjustment of existing regulations in the future.
and technology breakthroughs often have not been foreseen by the majority of main stream oriented experts, but were anticipated by a few unorthodox thinkers.
and technology working both in research institutes and private companies, is an option to improve the reliability and the validity of survey results.
and technology indicators combined with qualitative data Systematic approach Only quantitative data is not sufficient to detect emerging fields of regulation Comparison across technologies,
and even stakeholders Influence of non-technology-related factors cannot be considered Surveys Quantitative Micro data of the respondent
and impacts Impossibility to detect major technological breakthroughs and their regulatory requirements Semiquantiitativ In case of conflicting interests, missing-consensus about priorities Identification of experts Uncertainty increases with complexity of the context (technology, markets
and weaknesses of using this approach to identify future trends in science and technology. In addition
since not only experts in science and technology, possible users and consumers, but also members of public organisations, e g. regulatory bodies, have to be addressed.
if rather specific commercial applications of new sciences and technologies already exist. For shaping regimes of intellectual property rights,
and technology fields into regulatory foresight is not sufficient. Significant adjustments and further developments have to be made in order to achieve an adequate methodological base
-Baden, 2001.7 G. Tassey, Methods for Assessing the Economic impacts of Government R&d, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2003.8 K. Blind, B. Bührlen, C
9 B. R. Martin, Foresight in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 7 (2)( 1995) 139 168.10 K. Blind, K. Cuhls, H. Grupp, Current foresight activities in Central europe, Technol.
Flechtheim, Futurologie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, Frankfurt/M./Berlin, 1968.13 O. Helmer, Social Technology, Basic books, New york/London, 1966.14 J. W. Forrester
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The netherlands), 2004.21 K. Blind, The Economics of Standards Theory, Evidence, Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
, 2004.22 U. Schmoch, F. Laville, P. Patel, R. Frietsch, Linking Technology areas to Industrial Sectors, Final Report to the European commission, DG Research, Karlsruhe, 2003.23 K. Blind,
Patent pools a solution to patent conflicts in standardisation and an instrument of technology transfer, in:
Econ. 34 (16)( 2002) 1985 1998.26 R. Bekkers, G. Duysters, B. Verspagen, Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure the case of GSM
Ein Rückblick auf 30 Jahre Delphi-Expertenbefragungen, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.43 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP:
The Fifth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan (NISTEP Report No. 25, English translation of the 5th Japanese Delphi Report, abridged version), Tokyo. 44 Bundesministerium
45 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP; Science and Technology agency (1997: The Sixth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan toward The Year 2025, No. 52, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,(1993.
46 K. Cuhls, K. Blind, H. Grupp, Delphi'98 Umfrage. Zukunft nachgefragt, Studie zur globalen Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik, Karlsruhe, 1998.47 K. Cuhls, T. Kuwahara, Outlook for Japanese and German Future technology
, Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.48 Science and Technology foresight Center (NISTEP), The Seventh Technoloy Forecast Future technology in Japan toward the Year 2030, No. 72
, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,, 2001.49 K. Cuhls, S. Breiner, H. Grupp, Delphi-Bericht 1995 zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik Mini-Delphi, Bundesministerium für
and holds the chair on Innovation Economics at the Berlin University of Technology since 2006. In addition he is head of the competence center Regulation and Innovation of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
