Technology foresight; Technology management; Rapid technology analyses; Tech mining; Text mining; Knowledge discovery in databases 1. Introduction How long does it take to provide a particular Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA?
Technology foresight Quick tech mining can help participants grasp the scope of technology development efforts. Access to results in interactive mode (e g.,
http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Axes of balance in foresight reflections from Finnsight 2015 Ahti Salo a, Ville Brummer a & Totti Könnölä b a Systems analysis Laboratory
Ahti Salo, Ville Brummer & Totti Könnölä (2009) Axes of balance in foresight reflections from Finnsight 2015, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 987-1001, DOI:
8 november 2009,987 1001 Axes of balance in foresight reflections from Finnsight 20151 Ahti Saloa*,Ville Brummera and Totti Könnöläb asystems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University
a joint foresight exercise that would provide inputs to this strategy, foster collaboration between these funding agencies and promote foresight and innovation activities at large.
Towards these objectives Finnsight 2015 engaged 10 expert panels which identified key driving forces and characterised focus areas of competences by making extensive use of Internet-based tools
what policy developments have taken place after to the publication of foresight results, in the belief that our analysis may be instructive for the planning of large-scale foresight exercises that need to serve high-level policy objectives subject to demanding time constraints and expectations.
Keywords: foresight; research and innovation policy; innovation studies; group decision support 1. Introduction As an instrument of strategic policy intelligence (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), foresight must often serve multiple objectives that are shaped by its policy context.
Typically, these objectives include attempts (1) to prepare priorities in the research and innovation (R&i) system,
(2) to reorient the R&i system, (3) to demonstrate the vitality of this system, (4) to bring new actors to R&i debates,
In effect, the extent to which the objectives of a foresight exercise are instrumental (e g. priority-setting)
In this setting, the chances of conducting a successful foresight exercise can be enhanced much if these questions are recognised explicitly in the pre foresight phases (see, e g.
Irvine and Martin 1984; Martin and Irvine 1989; Rask 2008) with the aim of aligning the methodological design of the exercise with the explicit and even implicit objectives that are placed on the exercise.
the national foresight exercise of the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes), which served to inform albeit indirectly the development of the national strategy and the attendant implementation of several Strategic Centres of Excellence in Science and Technology.
and examine Finnsight in view of axes of balance that are arguably helpful in the planning of foresight exercises The methodological novelties of Finnsight are highlighted,
Finland has had an active and varied foresight scene, characterised by numerous activities that have been initiated by several key actors of the R&i system (see, e g.
For examplle the Ministry of Trade and Industry has facilitated a so-called Foresight Forum (Könnölä, Brummer, and Salo 2007;
In addition to one-of-a-kind exercises, important elements of foresight activity are ingrained in policy processes at the highest level of decision making:
Yet, these many activities notwithstanding (or possibly because of the proliferation thereof), there have been no foresight exercises on a scale that would match the scope
thus, some results from even seemingly isolated foresight activities can be brought to bear on policy making even in the absence of formal coordination,
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 989
and the establishment of selective decision processes based on foresight. Furthermore, this decision obliged the Academy of Finland2
respectively) took the initiative to launch a joint foresight exercise thatwould provide informational inputs to the shaping of the national strategy and also other strategic planning processes.
because they had had engaged not in joint consultative foresight activities except within specific research programs (see, e g. Salo and Salmenkaita 2002.
Yet, the very remit of the foresight exercise for which the apt title Finnsight 2015 was coined implied that a large-scale consultative process was called for,
and Veli-Pekka Saarnivaara, the General Director of Tekes agreed that they would launch a joint foresight exercise
and that the foresight deliberations would be carried out by expert panels, although neither the number of panels nor their thematic positioning were specified at this stage.
and the project manager of Finnsight. 3. 2. Foresight panels and phases of the foresight process The delineation of foresight panels was an iterative process where the Core group explored some alternative rationales for choosing panel titles, even in view of international experiences,
and developed a tentative proposal that was debated by the Steering Group. After extensive discussions, the Steering Group chose to establish the following panels:(
Because Finnsight was a foresight process of two funding agencies with different but complemenntar roles in the R&i system,
it was imperative to achieve a proper balance in addressing the Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 991 intertwined components of research (of key concern to the Academy of Finland and innovation
The foresight process which was designed by the Core group and approved by the Steering Group was based on panel-centricwork where each panelwould have three half-a-day meetings.
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 993 In the first panel meetings
c) Foresight outputs and their dissemination The responsibility for synthesising the panel reports was assigned to the panel chairmen.
and those policy makers who would not have the opportunity to read the full Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 995 Table 1. Examples of focal areas of competences identified by the panels.
d) Subsequent policy developments Because foresight is a highly systemic instrument with close linkages to other policy processes that contribute to the development of the R&i system,
it is not straightforward to assess to what extent subsequent policy developments may have been influenced by foresight recommendations (cf.
Such developments often build on various processes of sense-making and negotiation that draw upon on foresight conclusions.
South korea and Canada and by the European commission. 8 One of the objectives of Finnsight was that it should encourage other actors of the R&i system to initiate foresight activities.
The objectives of this process whose Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 997 results were published in June 2008
nevertheless to provide feedback on the foresight process and the panel reports in April 2006. In this survey
more than 95%of the respondents9 indicated that the foresight process had been rewarding to them (in the sense that responded with a 5,
As instruments of strategic policy intelligence (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), foresight exerciise such as Finnsight must respond to implicit
We therefore reflect on Finnsight along four design attributes (see also Könnölä et al. 2009) that are concerned with (1) instrumental vs informative use of foresight results;(
and (4) fixed vs autonomous management of the process. 4. 1. Instrumental vs informative use of foresight results In terms of alternative modes of harnessing foresight conclusions,
instrumental use of foresight refers to the development and deployment of results for specific and foreseen decision-making situations,
because the foresight results characterised focal competence areas that would plausibly merit explicit attention in strategy implementation.
the broader processes of using foresight results were not part of Finnsight which was framed emphatically as a foresight project that would produce informational results,
in the expectation that different organisations would use these results in whatever ways they would see pertinent.
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 998 A. Salo et al. 4. 2. Extensive vs exclusive stakeholder engagement Extensive stakeholder engagement refers to foresight approaches where the number of participants is high
and the methods of the foresight exercise are defined during its earliest phases and then imposed consistently through reasonably tight controls.
In contrast, autonomous management refers to more openennde processes that are intermediated by the foresight co-ordinators (cf. the Core group in Finnsight) who facilitate relatively autonomous participant-led activities in the work of expert panels or other approaches (Salo
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 999 In Finnsight,
a balance along this dimension had to be achieved to ensure that the process would contribute to the attainment of foresight objectives
In view of positive experiences, we believe that analogous approaches may be useful also in other contexts where expert panels are required to generate coherent and comprehensive foresight results in the presence of tight timeframes and high expectations.
query=foresight, http://www. kicttep. re. kr/app/notice/down. jsp? pid=global report& idx=1415&fno=1841, http://www. reperes. mdeie. gouv. qc. ca/fr/index. php?
Foresight in Nordic innovation systems. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre. http://www. nordicinnovation. net/img/nordic foresight forum final report. pdf (accessed 20 september 2009.
Foresight within ERA NETS: experiences from the preparation of an international research program. Technological forecasting and Social Change 75, no. 4: 483 95.
From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany. Journal of Forecasting 22, nos. 2 3: 93 111.
Twelve lessons drawn from‘Key technologies 2005',The french technology foresight exercise. Journal of Forecasting 22, nos. 2 3: 161 77.
Adaptive foresight: navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies. Technological forecasting and Social Change 75, no. 4: 462 82.
Evaluation of national foresight activities: assessing rational, process and impact. Technological foresight and Social Change 73, no. 7: 761 77.
Havas, A. 2003. Evolving foresight in a small transition economy. Journal of Forecasting 22, nos. 2 3: 179 201.
Hekkert, M. P.,R. A a. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R. E. H. M. Smits. 2007.
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 1001 Irvine, J,
Foresight in science: picking the winners. London: Dover. Kaivo-oja, J.,J. Marttinen, and J. Varelius. 2002.
Basic conceptions and visions of the regional foresight system in Finland. Foresight 4, no. 6: 34 45.
Keenan, M. 2003. Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience. Journal of Forecasting 22, no. 2 3: 129 60.
Diversity in foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas. Technological forecasting and Social Change 74, no. 5: 608 26.
Management of foresight portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organization. Technological Analysis & Strategic management 21, no. 3: 381 405.
Martin, B. R, . and J. Irvine. 1989. Research foresight: priority-setting in science. London: Pinter.
Rask, M. 2008. Foresight balancing between increasing variety and productive convergence. Technological forecasting and Social Change 75, no. 8: 1157 75.
Salmenkaita, J.-P, . and A. Salo. 2002. Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies.
Incentives in technology foresight. International Journal of Technology management 21, no. 7: 694 710. Salo, A, . and O. Kuusi. 2001.
Embedded foresight in RTD programs. International Journal of Technology Policy and Management 2, no. 2: 167 93.
Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1, no. 1 2: 70 88.
Smith, K. 2000. Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise&innovation Management Studies 1, no. 1: 73 102.
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1, nos. 1 2: 4 32. STPC. 2006. Science, technology, innovation.
and merging empirical/analytical methods with stakeholder engagement processes 5. The positioning was aimed at perceived overlapping fields of practice among technology foresight, forecasting, intelligence, roadmapping, and assessment.
a dominance both in papers submitted and in taxonomic terms of the‘‘foresight''label. In successive conferences conclusions have noted this tendency to regard FTA as the name of the conference
and foresight as the generic term for the field encompassing most, if not all of the approaches listed above.
Certainly foresight papers have dominated numerically but the need to recognise the traditions of technology assessment, forecasting and other dimensions of futures studies remains important
the success of foresight in recent years illustrates the strength of what they describe as the‘‘covenant between futures methodology and the needs of long-term strategic management and policy''.
Ian Miles has sought to position foresight in relation to the broader canon of futures studies 8 . While acknowledging similarities to la prospective,
he sees the main distinctive features of foresight from futures studies as lying in a link to policy actions,
and that for wider purposes a dual definition of foresight as a broader umbrella and as a specific family of approaches will persist.
13 but the anchor papers plus another which represented a crosscutting theme emerging at the conference (tailoring foresight) have been put together here.
and more specifically for foresight, in terms of its inbuilt concern with research and innovation policy or strategy issues.
Schoen et al. address recent developments in foresight theory and practice which lead them to deploy a hybrid methodological framework involving tailored approaches for specific purposes
and/or phases of a foresight activity. Both context and objectives are taken into account in improving strategic processes of priority-setting,
Ko nno la et al. put forward a framework to clarify different roles of foresight within the system and their respective impacts and implications for policy and societal developments.
Among FTA TOOLS foresight is posited as the most suitable for providing policy support to address major societal challenges.
This picks up the point above, that stakeholder engagement and participation is at the core of foresight activities
and analysed by future foresight activities. Concluding the edition, in a short essay, Johnston and Cagnin review the main findings from a series of interviews about the status of FTA as an activity with nine personalities attending the FTA conference.
and emphasises the need for the kind of participatory approaches that foresight in particular can offer. Tailored approaches are needed that reflect the varied and complex structures of sectors
a pressing and long-term challenge, Futures 41 (2009) 67 70.8 I. Miles, From futures to foresight, in:
The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 24 43.9 F. Scapolo, A l. Porter, M. Rader, Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:
Tailoring Foresight to field specificities§Antoine Schoen a,,*Totti Ko nno la b, 1, Philine Warnke c, 2, Re'mi Barre'd, 3, Stefan Kuhlmann e, 4 a Universite
. Introduction The paper presents an approach at improving the impact of foresight by systematically taking into account the characteristics of the targeted research and innovation (R&i) domains when designing a Foresight exercise.
Available online 19 november 2010 A b s T R A c T Thepaperpresentsanapproachatimprovingtheimpact offoresightbysystematicallytaking into account the characteristics of the targeted research and innovation (R&i) domains when designing a Foresight exercise.
The paper addresses recent developments in Foresight theory and practice which allow for deploying a hybrid methodological framework where different approaches serve different purposes in specific phases in order to tailor Foresight to a wide range of different contexts and objectives.
The paper can be characterised as empirically based theory building. The theoretical framework is elaborated by applying it in two R&i fields:(
In particular it is suggested that the capability of Foresight to function as a systemic innovation policy instrument for enhancing innovation
and learning capability could be improved substantially by tailoring the Foresight approach to the targeted innovation arena. 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.002 The first section of this paper presents the background of this new development concerning Foresight methodology and synthesises the need for a proper tailoring of Foresight.
and innovation system and identifies the catalytic role of Foresight in this framework. The European system is sketched in terms of‘‘institutional arrangements''by depicting three (interrelated) arenas for the orientation, the programming and the performance of research.
Foresight is presented as a systemic policy tool appropriate for contributing to a better-geared European research
The design of a Foresight exercise can be adjusted to field specificities. This will be illustrated by two case studies,
first in the area of genetically modified plants and then for the domain of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. 2. Background and rationale 2. 1. Tailoring Foresight a revision During the last two decades the field of Foresight has developed a lot through practical experience
evidence-based policy and academic disciplines such as Innovation studies and Science and Technology studies 2. A number of classifications have been developed distinguishing types of Foresight with respect to approach, context and purpose 3
Foresight practitioners do now deploy hybrid methodological frameworks where different approaches serve different purposes in specific phases in order to tailor Foresight to each specific purpose and context.
The famous‘‘Foresight generations''4 are viewed no more as mutually exclusive but as complementary approaches. Explorative and normative elements are combined as well as wide collective dialogue
Key Foresight concepts such as‘‘vision''that were used previously in a rather broad and all encompassing manner have been deconstructed
7. At the same time the notion of Foresight as a governance tool and policy instrument has been refined. Systems of policy functions have been proposed to enable Foresight design
and evaluation to tailor approaches to policy objectives (8, Forsociety). In order to improve Foresight impact on policy strategy building it has been proposed to complement collective Foresight processes with a strategic counselling phase where the outcomes are translated into strategic choices 9. To sum up,
it seems that Foresight has been evolving from a loose collection of approaches to a complex integrated framework with a number of levers for adaptation to specific purposes and contexts and gradually,
a more systematic understanding of the key elements of this adaptation is emerging. The main context variables taken into account for Tailoring Foresight are focus,
objectives and policy functions on the one hand and nature of decision making structure and their relation to the Foresight process on the other. 2. 2. Why more tailoring?
In this paper we address the issue of the tailoring of Foresight with respect to themes or field,
i e. directed at a certain innovation area. The need to tailor policy instruments to the characteristics of the targeted field is grounded well in insights from research on the dynamics of innovation and knowledge generation.
Advancing Foresight methodologies funded by the European Science foundation; see: http://www. costa22. org/./8 Forsociety was one of the Era nets in the FP6.
In an early attempt to explore dependency between field dynamics and Foresight success the FORMAKIN project highlighted how Foresight works differently in close
and loose-knit configurational relations 20. However, apart from this, there are hardly any systematic accounts of the relationship Foresight design
and field specificities. Therefore we aim at‘‘deconstructing''Foresight to identify the objectives and variables that need to be adapted to match these domains'specificities. 3. Institutional arrangements in European research and innovation system In Europe, the conduct,
the funding and the strategic orientation of research and innovation have become a multilevel and multi-actor arrangement (e g. 21,22).
but did not substitute the actors of this latter arena. 3. 2. Foresight objectives in the context of the three governance arenas We choose to focus our analysis on Foresight in connection with policy
and define the Foresight exercise as a project with a clear beginning and end. Hence, we exclude from our analyses Embedded foresight
or scanning activities which are performed as regular operations. Foresight can be characterised as a systemic instrument 25 aiming at enhanced capabilities in innovation systems and their parts 26.
Foresight activities are seen as functions not only to identify promising technological pathways but also to engage relevant stakeholders and create common visions into action 25,
27. Furthermore, Foresight processes are supposed to help designing new value networks that are based on the novel combinations of technologies, organisational partnerships and institutional arrangements.
Towards this end, we will crystallise the functions of Foresight exercise in order to provide support in the definition of Foresight objectives within the field configurations.
Foresight objectives have been defined by 27 as follows: Foresight in support to priority-setting. Priority-setting supports the identification of common future actions and the efficient allocation of resources 28.
Priority setting may, however, decrease the diversity of options that could challenge conventional approaches and dominant designs 29
and escape from techno-institutional lock ins 30,31. Here, Foresight can generate ideas on alternatives and recognise the diverse perspectives in priority setting 32,33
and support finding the most appropriate priorities. Foresight in support to networking, which enhances the connectivity of the innovation system
and can improve its performance 34. However, the excessive strengthening of existing networks (see e g. 35) may create pathdependdencie and locking-out alternative technological options 36.
Here, Foresight can also contribute to the creative restructuring and even the destruction of lock in conditions by engaging different stakeholders in the proactive generation of rivalling visions for competing coalitions based on different value networks with different architectures, configurations, features and standards 37,38.
Foresight in support to building shared visions of the future reduces uncertainties and helps synchronize the strategies and joint actions of different stakeholders (e g. 39).
Foresight can support the exploration of alternative futures and respective techno-institutional arrangements 27. All three Foresight objectives have a particular significance in relation to the governance arenas.
In other words, Foresights for research policy purposes, can be characterised by their positioning in the governance arenas vs.
Foresight Table 1 Elements characterising the three arenas of governance for R&i in the EU context.
Strategic orientation: EU Parliament European commission Council (Competitiveness Council) institutional triangle Board of the intergovernmental research institutions (CERN, ESA...
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 235 objectives matrix (Table 2). In each cell of the matrix, the Foresights do not have the same actors involved, nor the same perspectives, nor the same objectives.
and performance arenas need different types of Foresights and such is the case also for priority-setting,
each cell of the matrix shapes a specific framework for Foresight, -different thematic fields refer to different‘search regimes'characterising their mode
and dynamics of knowledge production which impact the state of play in each cell of the matrix, hence the proper Foresight design.
This will enable us to identify the Knowledge dynamics characteristics that will impact the Foresight exercises, i e. their tailoring using the arenas for governance Foresight objectives matrix. 4. Knowledge dynamics in European research and innovation system Policy-making in arenas of strategic orientation,
programming and performing is driven partly by the content and the dynamics of research activities and by the innovation patterns and interactions of different thematic fields or sectors(‘‘Knowledge dynamics''.
Table 2 Foresight objectives in relation to the arenas of governance. Arenas of governance Foresight objective Priority-setting Networking Building visions Strategic orientation Macro policy priority setting National/EU level stakeholders networks Overall political
level vision building Programming Programmes scientific priority setting Programmes stakeholders networks Sectoral vision building, context of roadmaps Performing Research institutions strategic processes Research institutions
Table 3 summarises the network analysis-based toolbox designed for characterising search regimes dimensions with an initial focus on the cells highlighted in grey. 5. Tailoring Foresight to Knowledge dynamics In this section,
we explore the implications of field specificities on the Foresight activities taking place in the three governance arenas identified in Section 2. 1. We will present two illustrative cases:
then we will elaborate the designs of the Foresight exercises fitted to the specific Knowledge dynamics and institutional arrangements in these two fields. 5. 1. The case of genetically modified plants (GMP) After the completion of the human genome map in 2001,
towards a Tailored foresight In the field of GM plants research we find a strong growth rate
The immediate conclusion for Foresight is need the for consensus building among stakeholders from industry and civil society for a further development of the European research and innovation system.
There seems to be a strong demand for all three Foresight objectives namely participatory visioning
On a closer look the needs for Foresight can be specified on the base of the field analysis. It seems unlikely that the existence of consensual visions focussing on GM research alone will be sufficient
To sum up Foresight may serve for channelling more elements into the GM research and innovation system thus helping to relax some of the current tensions.
Two types of Foresight exercises are emerging from the analysis: firstly, exploration of multiple GM futures in the broader context of agricultural system and secondly, localisation and diversification of the GM research agenda.
towards a Tailored foresight In the realm of nano-related research we see a strong growth rate and at the same time a strong divergence.
Nevertheless a careful analysis of potential synergies may well reveal a number of inroads for coordinated Foresight exercises directed at priority setting
This type of Foresight is also likely to inform further integration of the programming arena
Foresight oriented towards holistic visions building seems likely to provide relevant support here, which calls for operations in the orientation arena.
A number of Recent foresight approaches are currently heading in this direction. Examples are the EU FP6 Nanologue project14 where different products for different socio-technical scenarios were envisaged or the strategy articulation workshops in the framework of the Dutch Nanoned initiative (e g. 49 51.
Finally, as for GM plants, a Nano Foresight exercise may contribute to raise research on safety assessment among the scientific priorities for avoiding the stalemate GM plants are facing.
To sum up the analysis revealed two types of Foresight useful for underpinning the European research and innovation system in the area of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies:(
and programming arena and create trusted ground for nanoinnovvation at the orientation arena level. 6. Conclusions The paper set out from the notion of Foresight as a systemic innovation policy instrument supporting priority setting,
The paper aimed to enhance the ability of Foresight to fulfil these functions through systematically taking into account (a) the specific characteristics of the research
Based on this analysis conclusions for potential Foresight exercises with a relevant contribution for the development of these fields were sketched.
Even though the analysis of the two cases could only be done in a very preliminary manner it proved possible to derive meaningful conclusions for the design of Foresight exercises.
For each field specific lock in situations to be tackled by Foresight were revealed. Both cases have revealed a strong institutional complementarity reflecting an early alignment of academia
Finally, it needs to be ensured that tailoring of Foresight to the current dynamics of a research
this paper proposes a reasonably validated framework which beyond its acknowledged limitations addresses directly the difficult issue of the design of Foresight activities fit for the emerging European research area (ERA.
It follows that the Foresight function, in its various objectives, will have to be designed and implemented in this totally new and complex situation.
we suggest our methodology is applicable indeed for designing such ERA Foresight activities and contribute to address the challenge we face regarding both the ERA and Foresight.
Acknowledgements This paper is based on a workshop organised by the JRC-IPTS European foresight Action at Seville, Spain, June 2008.
We are grateful to all the participants for their comments and contributions in particular to Jennifer Cassingena Harper, Luke Georghiou, Jari Kaivo-oja, Philippe Laredo and Matthias Weber.
The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2008.3 R. Barre',Synthesis of Technology foresight, in:
A. Tu bke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paterno-Castello (Eds. Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, The State of Play and Perspectives, S&t Intelligence for Policy-making processes, European commission EUR 20137 EN, Sevilla, 2001.4 L. Georghiou, Third Generation Foresight Integrating
the Socioeconomic Dimension, Foresight Center of NISTEP, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.5 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes, For Society Transnational Foresight ERA NET, 2006.6 N. Borup, N
. Brown, K. Konrad, H. van Lente, The sociology of expectation in science and technology, Technology analysis & Strategic management 18 (3/4)( 2006) 285 298.7 B. De
using innovation studies to Design Foresight tools, in: N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster (Eds. Contested Futures.
A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2000.8 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.9 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight:
20 N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster, Foresight as a Tool for the Management of Knowledge Flows and Innovation (FORMAKIN.
Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1/2)( 2004) 4 32.26 A. Salo, T. Ko nno la, M. Hjelt, Responsiveness in Foresight management:
reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2009) 70 88.27 T. Ko nno la, V
. Brummer, A. Salo, Diversity in Foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, Technological forecasting and Social Change 74 (5)( 2007) 608 626.28 J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Foresight in Science:
Picking the Winners, Pinter Publ. London/Dover, 1984.29 W. B. Arthur, Competing technologies, increasing returns,
an analytical framework and key issues for research, Energy Policy 28 (9)( 2000) 625 640.32 A. Salo, T. Gustafsson, R. Ramanathan, Multicriteria methods for Technology foresight, Journal
the UK experience, Journal of Forecasting 22 (2 3)( 2003) 129 160.34 B. R. Martin, R. Johnston, Technology foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation system.
reflections from a hydrogen Foresight project, Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (3)( 2007) 259 265.39 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to Foresight processes new participative Foresight activities in Germany, Journal
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011