| Different stakeholder (49) |  |
| Exclusive stakeholder (9) | |
| Relevant stakeholder (30) | |
| Stakeholder (733) | |
| Stakeholder engagement (31) | |
| Stakeholder group (23) | |
| Stakeholder image construction (9) | |
| Stakeholder participation (25) | |
| Stakeholder workshop (16) | |
| Wider stakeholder (5) | |
or how best to merge empirical/analytical methods with stakeholder engagement processes. In addition, the idea was to analyse possible overlapping fields of practice among technology foresight, forecasting, intelligence, roadmapping, and assessment.
failing to use available techniques to encourage culture change in stakeholder organisations and creating a much greater digital divide by over-restriction of access to available information. 5. What's the use?
Evaluation also serves to highlight the role of FTA as learning processes for stakeholders and thereby encouraging widespread innovation in organisational responses to the challenges of the future. 6. Importing ideas As might be expected of a session dealing with new ideas on FTA there was a wide diversity of suggestions and issues presented.
and learning to improve the coherence and coordination between the actions of a wide range of actors and stakeholders.
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
Therefore, a consolidated integration of analytical and exploratory scientific methods (e g. system analysis and modelling) on the one hand and of participatory processes and interactions with experts and stakeholders on the other would help enhance the scientific credibility of foresight results. 7‘Environmental scanning'along the lines
and stakeholders Adaptive foresight is designed to help decision-makers develop strategies. You can do a research project usingmany of the ideas from AF,
potentially involving many stakeholders of which some represent other and equally legitimate aspects of the addressee than the direct client.
for instance in order to ensure coordination and cooperation between different actors and stakeholders. 22 An alternative, more theory-led,
This phase is conducted through back-office work, discussions with the client and perhaps interviews with a limited number of other experts and stakeholders.
drafting of exploratory framework scenarios25 The first forward-looking and interactive element of an AF project is typically a workshop with experts and stakeholders.
This is useful in order to clarify shared (or diverging) policy and/or societal goals, ambitions and underlying values of the actors and stakeholders involved.
aswell as over 400 participantswho represented relevant stakeholder groups, most notably leading researchers and industrialists. Methodologically, the processwas based on the Internet-based solicitation and assessment of research issues, the deployment ofrobust Portfoliomodeling (RPM) in the identification of promising research issues,
1, 2), in the recognition that the engagement of stakeholders from several countries may help anticipate scientific, technological and societal developments, for example.
at best, help the stakeholders overcome possible barriers by supporting shared vision-building, networking and priority setting (see, e g.,
Here, tentative interests in prospective collaboration can be probed by inviting stakeholders from different countries to explore what research themes should be pursued through international joint RTD activities
ERA NETS and other European coordination tools are indicative of the transformation of the EU innovation policy from financially oriented measures to the facilitation and monitoring of stakeholder processes
14) where policy-makers interact with RTD stakeholders in learning processes and build new coalitions and institutions based on the use of distributed strategic intelligence 15.
and embedded foresight activities that help RTD stakeholders recognize how the benefits of international collaboration can outweigh the efforts needed to overcome regulatory, institutional, administrative and cultural barriers.
The engagement of RTD stakeholders from all the countries was a prerequisite for identifying research issues that reflected relevant scientific and technological developments, on one hand,
the consultation processes had to recognize multiple interfaces among the RTD stakeholders from eight different countries.
Scalability is needed to process contributions from stakeholders who are concerned with different facets of innovation systems at the local, sectoral, national and international level.
In Woodwisdom-Net, scalability meant that the consultation process had to deal with varying amounts of contributions from large number of stakeholders in different countries.
consisting of four research areas and 23 sub-areas. 6 Stakeholder participation, too, was based on the definition of explicit roles and responsibilities for the different phases of the process.
, phases for different stakeholder groups in the Woodwisdom-Net consultation process. In the presence of interdependencies, it is imperative that the preceding tasks are completed before new ones are started.
Furthermore, the process engaged an extensive set of RTD stakeholders from eight countries, most notably Researchers and Industrial leaders:
Specifically, the process consisted of consecutive phases with specified roles and responsibilities for stakeholders, whereby inputs were solicited
The main phases are summarized in Table 1. Over 400 stakeholders from all participating countries participated in the process.
this is yet another reason why stakeholder roles and responsibilities must be explicated carefully and communicated. Even funding organizations are faced with a learning challenges,
and often part of larger foresight exercises driven by stakeholders of science and technology policies. Moreover national SDOS, including some in the USA
on the regulationreleevan aspects and also to make use of the information about the stakeholders active for regulatory action in a potential new field.
Within potential technological fields relevant for future regulation, regulation-relevant contents and possible stakeholders have to be identified,
Nevertheless, complementary content and stakeholders analyses allow a further specification of possible fields of future regulation and the identification of stakeholders.
CENELEC and ETSI published by the European commission 38 to develop a standardisation work programme to support the internal market for the service sectors. 3. 2. 3. The future needs for standards in nanotechnology based on a survey among stakeholders
Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.
Surveys can be used to ask stakeholders about future needs for standardisation and regulation activities. Finally, surveys have a high acceptance as a methodology
and regulations differentiated into different types of stakeholder groups, which allows comparative analyses. If surveys address the universe of organisations, e g. firms,
Furthermore, most foresight approaches actively involve stakeholders and their inputs. Foresight methodologies can also be used to assess ex ante the impacts of just released,
and technology foresights focusing both on active researchers and stakeholders responsible for shaping and performing R&d programmes.
and even the identification of stakeholders, especially companies, but also researchers, to be involved in the regulatory process.
However, the reliability and validity of the results depend crucially on the identification of the adequate sample of stakeholders.
if all relevant stakeholder groups are addressed adequately and strategic responses can be corrected for. Otherwise, this approach produces rather biased assessments.
which allow at least the identification of stakeholders in science and technology working both in research institutes
Stakeholders from the user and even the consumer side are much more difficult to select based on the presented indicator methodologies
and even stakeholders Influence of non-technology-related factors cannot be considered Surveys Quantitative Micro data of the respondent
the range of stakeholders and experts to be integrated in a Delphi exercise to perform a regulatory foresight becomes wider and more complex,
and a long-lasting process of convincing stakeholders about the need and effectiveness of such approaches are required.
and stakeholders, like regulatory bodies. A first approach was launched in Germany by a study to identify future themes for standardisation based on the negative experiences in the case of nanotechnology,
He also has an interest in multi-stakeholder forums. Currently he is at Utrecht University, Department of Innovation and Environmental Studies,
The role of stakeholders/actors, processes and objectives also have to be studied in order to identify the principles
Societal actors and the public at large are seen increasingly as stakeholders of major importance that should be involved in decision-making processes.
It has to engage all interested and potentially affected stakeholders in this endeavour. Foresight is one such method
It enables the alignment of all stakeholders'endeavours such that they can influence underlying trends. Foresight can have an impact on the ways in
while new combinations of experts and stakeholders were brought also together. Intermediate impacts included the development of visions of the future;
and the ownership of action plans by stakeholders and sponsors. In terms of ultimate impacts, the exercise influenced research agendas in the science base
On the other hand, other stakeholders suggested that the greater involvement of ministries would also have undermined legitimacy by turning the exercise into an outlet for government policy and opinion.
and initiate meaningful and lively dialogues among stakeholders. Their diverse accumulated knowledge and experience, as well as distinct viewpoints are indispensable for building policy-relevant visions.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.001 levels, the stakeholders of universities, as well as academics interested in prospective analysis of innovation systems. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
and‘relative weight'of stakeholders to be involved in a participatory prospective analysis on the future of universities:
and its potential benefits for various stakeholders. From a different angle, there are fundamental differences between foresight programmes, on the one hand,
The very idea behind participatory programmes is to bring together different stakeholders with their diverse sets of accumuulate knowledge and experience,
and participatory, that is, they involve the representatives of relevant stakeholders, disseminate their results among the wider public affected by the changes/actions in the field/theme analysed,
and weights of involving stakeholders: national and regional policy-makers, businesses, societal groups, students, academic staff, etc.
and goals of different stakeholders, and the one between the need to monitor and control the various activities of universities for managerial purposes
let alone among different types of them. 568 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 4. Futures for universities Vision-building requires an intense dialogue among stakeholders for two reasons:(
Second, the content or some elements of the futures drafted here can be used as one of the inputs for dialogues among stakeholders in actual foresight processes.
regular communication among the stakeholders even when the process is completed; stronger co-operation; shared visions and consensus on the actions need to be taken;
The second refers to lists of priorities and proposed actions (for different stakeholders, in this case e g. university rectors and deans, regional, national and EU policy-makers, businesses and local communities as partners of universities), inputs
They possess excellent‘navigation'skills to find their way in this complex world, often characterised by conflicting requirements of the various stakeholders.
For the stakeholders of universities their leaders, staff, students, businesses, the relevant community around them, be it local,
as are promoting strategic dialogues among the stakeholders, initiating pilot foresight (prospective) projects; etc. The national 579 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 governments, international organisations and associations of universities can provide methodological and financial support for these initiatives.
as well as distinct viewpoints and approaches of the major stakeholders involved in these strategic dialogues, enrich the prospective discussion
and hence their contribution to socioeconomic development, major stakeholders need to be involved when strategic decisions are to be made on universities.
and complementing these with information from future-oriented stakeholder surveys, the Technology barometer can be regarded as a new tool for managing strategic investments in R&d,
examines how vitally important the foresight objective of inclusiveness in the embracement of diverse stakeholders is for the credibility of an innovation process.
This involved the inclusion of pre-engagement analysis of potential co-evolutions in the form of scenarios into interactive workshop activities, with the aim of enabling multi-stakeholder anticipation of the complexities of co-evolution.
and the relative importance attributed to different goals will vary depending on interests of specific stakeholder groups'perspectives 34.
and are not explicit with regard to different stakeholder preferences 38,42, 44 51. A meta-analysis of 80 scenario processes in the U s. found that these processes were started with a clear idea of the desired results
did not include stakeholders sufficiently, used inadequate assessment methods and failed to conclude the process by actually informing strategic action 37.2.3.
and stakeholder preferences for the assessment and making impacts of system choices transparent. To tackle this claim in an adequate way,
a wider group of stakeholders is involved 59 to diversify the knowledge sources 30. The relevant groups are identified in the situation analysis (e g. by using system constellation methods 60 to identify the roles, intentions, power and interactions among the most influential and affected 1153 E. Störmer et al./
The core team selects approximately a dozen stakeholder representatives according to their influence and affectedness 61.
The stakeholders are included in two workshops. At the end of the process, the results are transmitted to the decision makers who then decide about specific strategies. 3. 1. 2. Foresight generation Phase in the generation phase, the exploration of context uncertainties,
board minutes and stakeholder interviews, they identify the strength and weaknesses of the prevailing technical and organizational setup to address claims from customers, public, regulatory bodies and the affected environment 62.
and uncertain factors for further analysis. During the first stakeholder workshop the participants project different possible states of each of the factors in the year 2030+of each of the suggested influencing factors.
In the second stakeholder workshop the perspectives of relevant stakeholder groups are taken into Account for each scenario, participants adopt roles of different future stakeholder groups representing either future citizens
or industry representatives define their assumed preferences and rank each option on an ordinal scale ranging from well suited to not desirable.
In the end, a list of assessments will be available for each option under each scenario and evaluated according to the preferences of each considered interest group. 3. 2. Exploring the landscape of trade-offs These results may then be analyzed via different perspectives.
i) the dependency of option rankings relative to different context conditions,(ii) the level of conflict among stakeholder groups that a certain option would entail and (iii) sustainability deficits of preferred options.
because stakeholders agree on their low performance. Options in the far right corner show strong differences in assessments among stakeholder groups.
Hence, decision makers should be aware of potential divergence of interests. The higher middle circle encompasses options that were assessed very positively by one group
because arguments for a more favorable assessment had been raised at least by one stakeholder group. Trade-offs related to context conditions and diverging value perspectives can now be represented in this diagram for each option.
no attention is given to unequal power relations between the stakeholder groups or different possibilities of realization for each scenario.
While we may imagine solutions that seem attractive to a majority of the stakeholders in a future regional setting,
we chose again the social desirability of each option, measured by the average of the stakeholders'ratings.
In other words, we may say that the (prospective) stakeholders assessed the options according to their (assumed) subjective interests
Points to the left of the diagonal indicate potential sustainability deficits as the option is more desirable from the average stakeholder groups'perspective than from a balanced sustainability perspective.
Points in the lower right corner represent options that are rated low by stakeholders but would rank higher
In addition to technical and organizational aspects, the core team surveyed the actors in the regional sanitation landscape to select participants for the stakeholder workshops.
In the first workshop, the stakeholders elaborated four alternative scenarios describing context conditions in the year 2030+based on the set of influencing factors
In contrast, the industry's stakeholders favor besides low tariffs, additionally low levels of bureaucracy as well as voice and participation in the associations decision board. 4. 4. Exploring the trade-off landscape The virtual future stakeholder groups
In contrast, industry stakeholders did not favor this option, mainly because they would have to treat their wastewater onsite
and that consensus between the stakeholders is often lacking The onsite treatment option received highly diverse assessment scores.
A comparison of the stakeholders'assessment with the sustainability evaluation of the core team offers insight into the sustainability deficits that a politically negotiated solution would entail (see Fig. 5)
we can detect favorable aspects neglected by the stakeholders: In the downturn scenario, the core team assessed onsite treatment as the best solution due to savings in the sewerage network,
a characteristic that was taken not into account by the stakeholders. Such sustainability aspects could thus be included into the elaboration of detailed recommendations in the next step. 4. 5. Utilization implications for infrastructure development The performance characteristics of the different options
The inclusion of selected additional stakeholders in the workshops was appreciated for tapping into a broader knowledge base
and that different stakeholder perspectives are incorporated in a reflexive way (see also 7, 30). Furthermore, RIF offers an approach to explore disruptive alternatives in the mode 2 foresight concept.
E. Störmer, Focus on actors initial experiences with system constellations in theory-based evaluations, Z. Eval. 7 (1)( 2008) 35 73.61 J. Mayers, Stakeholder power
consensual vs. diverse future perspectives, extensive vs. exclusive stakeholder involvement, and autonomous vs. fixed management). The common and complemeentar features of FTA
Creating shared understandings among the stakeholders about the possible future developments is also important in each field;
The recruitment phase builds the network of experts, stakeholders and others meaningful to the process.
In the exploration stage, main issues, trends and drivers as well as key stakeholders'frames are explored. Analysis stage means studying how the context and main issues,
Fig. 4. Case projects positioned in view of the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental), future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse) and in the coordinate system of stakeholder engagement (extensive vs. exclusive) and management
when possible and relevant experts and stakeholders are collected. The generation phase or the prognosis phase of the FTA PROCESS resembles the hazard/risk identification phase in risk assessment
Exclusive stakeholder engagement o Extensive stakeholder engagement refers to the approach in which the actual number of participants is high,
the stakeholder participation is encouraged and open for all the interested stakeholders and many kinds of stakeholders are invited to participate in the process. o Exclusive stakeholder engagement
which means that stakeholder participation is limited and thus not open for all the stakeholders interested. 1171 R. Koivisto et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 Fig. 1. However, the normal monitoring and evaluation actions are conducted
in order to find out the relevance and accuracy of the analysis. The foresight process as well as the risk assessment process is a knowledge making process.
SECI and SLC models give foresight and risk analysis studies a common theoretical ground. Both models organise the knowledge making in three dimensional space generating the knowledge from personal and proprietary to common sense and public,
Political decision-making takes place in an environment characterized by ambiguity of problems and a multitude of conflicting interests between different stakeholders,
and the publication of the last barometer is assessed to well fulfill transparency requirements of the stakeholders.
Despite the somewhat different premises of these stakeholder groups the barometer concept has proven to be capable of casting some light into the black boxes of innovation system by focusing decision-makers attention to core subjects,
For this stakeholder analysis, key words were defined by the topic coordinators. According to the key words, literature from the Web of Science was counted on the one hand
as well as new networks and visions amongst stakeholders. Embedding participation in policy-making: facilitating the participation of civil society in the policy-making process,
or strategy 4, 5. Broad participation of societal stakeholders is not an essential requirement, but is becoming more and more a standard practice. 4 At the same time covering a broader range of important social,
Here is an opportunity for broader participation of societal stakeholders and open-minded discussions. Increasing the information base supports identifying
Moreover, opportunities for broad-scale participation of societal stakeholders are limited, as the choice among policy-alternatives is politicized a highly process in the end.
and stakeholders of a California water agency and measured participants'increasing understanding of the challenges posed by climate change
Difficulties in applying traditional scenario methods among the heterogeneous stakeholders public sector scenario exercises must engage are reported also elsewhere in the literature 17.
whereas getting stakeholder engagement and buy in was described as easier to achieve, but of less relevance in the practical day-to-day work.
improve stakeholder interaction and ensure a proportionality of costs and benefits. The overall process is coordinated by the Secretariat General of the European commission,
Soft links are concerned with creating more informal spaces for discussion and exchange between policymakker and their key stakeholders, in an ongoing mode with few official outputs.
but wide spread of stakeholders who will help to shape the future of society through the practical scheme proposed.
reinforced with the principles of CSH, can be of use in the nano-field providing wider stakeholder representation during the research and development processes.
is prompted by (a) recognition of the restriction to participation in current Foresight (b) the lessons learned from the corporate sector regarding the benefits of stakeholder inclusion
New groups of stakeholders Mechanisms to cope with the demands of social inclusion Whether inclusivity should be local,
its scope and its methods, including the‘selection'of the stakeholders to represent participants from:
This will inform the profiles of stakeholders/experts/lay people to be involved in Foresight, and will portray their relationships. 3. How Inclusive foresight might be achieved The steps that might be taken towards Inclusive foresight are:
The approach of CSH recognises that various stakeholders in society may see situations 14 in radically different ways because different stakeholder values and behavioural characteristics lead to different boundary judgements.
The‘radical'view accepts that these stakeholders may be in a conflicting or confrontational relationship with each other and may be unequal in terms of their power 15, status and other behavioural characteristics relevant to (i) above. 1215 D. Loveridge,
This involved the inclusion of pre-engagement analysis of potential co-evolutions in the form of scenarios into interactive workshop activities, with the aim of enabling multi-stakeholder anticipation of the complexities of co-evolution. 2009
and workshop within a programme of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) in a nanotechnology research network called Frontiers. 3 The FTA ACTIVITIES in this network revolve around multi-(potential) stakeholder workshops where the aim is to explore the complex dynamics in and around specific areas of nanotechnology important for the Frontiers
because this form of scenario confronts participants in multi-stakeholder workshops with choices and dilemmas, allowing for more informed strategy articulation through deepening
Within this context, a key issue for many potential stakeholders, and most of those that were the subject of this FTA exercise was
and stakeholder strategies were explored. At the time of the workshop (December 2007) the situation in and around nanotechnology involved mostly the discussion of Environment, Health and Safety aspects (EHS/HES) and other nanotoxicity related discussions,
In the case of the Frontiers Noe for nanotechnology, the programme involved research and preparation of these scenarios an input to 1-day multi-stakeholder workshops
as well as the exploration of positions, stances and perspectives of the stakeholders, where probed and explored.
What was important in such a multi-stakeholder setting, was the inclusion of all active actors in the scenarios.
This can be seen as a stakeholder endorsement of the approach (which is an important indicator how well workshops like these are working.
and interact within multi-stakeholder workshops. 1237 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 The scenarios use endogenous futures,
highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known.
The paper introduces the concept of'stakeholder image, 'which is associated with the inherent characteristics of specific social groups from socioeconnomic cognitive and political perspectives.
so that they can be involved in a foresight process representing a stakeholder group. Amunicipal foresight activity in Lundal is described to illustrate how an image for young people was created to endow them to be represented as stakeholders in the process.
Salo, Brummer, and Könnölä describe and analyses Finnsight 2015, a joint foresight exercise that took place in Finland
and by involving different stakeholder groups at corporate decisions. The ability to design adaptive processes is linked
With its long-term perspective and its emphasis on connecting perspectives of different knowledge areas and different actors and stakeholders, foresight differs from corporate strategic planning,
five or maybe eight years ahead and involves only a very limited number of stakeholders.
The methods used in this approach to strategy formulation are, among others, stakeholder analyses, networks, negotiations, political games, alliances and power bases in expertise (i e. academic reputation.
Foresight processes are political processes where stakeholders or powers negotiate with each other; compromises (which produce results) can be made on goals as well as on means;
Stakeholders and decision-makers in charge of implementing the choices are the major players in these processes; foresight practitioners (process consultants or core groups) and formal processes play relatively minor roles.
Foresight methods preferred under this approach focus on key actors and their viewpoints, for example stakeholder analyses and Delphi studies.
A clearer inclusion of stakeholders and of the general public in the research council case would have improved the plan's legitimacy;
highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known.
and a series of face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, including senior researchers within Luxembourg and abroad, as well as companies and public administrators.
Workshop Exploratory Workshop‘Long list'of research domains Initial assessment Selection of broad research fields Stakeholder workshops No formal input General Challenges for Luxembourg Expert workshops per field SWOT Analysis Initial
13 workshops one Stakeholder workshop and two expert workshops for each of six thematic fields6 were conducted. As a starting point for assessing research domains, representatives from Luxembourg society,
and rationales in viewof the challennge identified in the stakeholder workshop, and to identify important implementation issues. 5. Conduct of FNR Foresight Foresight exercises tend to face a number of generic challenges in their conduct
Accordingly, the following sections are limited to discussion of the various and changing meanings given to FNR Foresight by a mix of stakeholder groups;
and referring back to challenges identified in the stakeholder workshop. This process led to the selection and reformulation of the research topics into‘candidates'for national research priorities.
Instead, a better STI policy strategy is to foster an innovation system that is sufficiently flexible to support such areas at their time of emergence. 5. 3. Deliberative processes Foresight exercises are characterised by deliberation between various stakeholders, often in workshhop and working groups.
'whereby stakeholders are playing a range of roles and representiin different interests at the same time. However contrary to previous findings (Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008), this did not make coordination easier in Luxembourg
and findings will have some effects on a wide array of stakeholders. In the case of FNR Foresight, these include the FNR itself, the MCHER, the research community and, to a lesser extent, the business community.
and the questionable ownership by the relevant stakeholders. 6. 2. Impact on FNR One of the main objectives of the Foresight was to inform new FNR programmes
thus familiarising the wider public with the stakeholders as well as with the role of science in a modern society. 6. 3. Impacts on the research community As mentioned in the previous section,
owing to a lack of common vision among the various stakeholders on the position and contribution of S&t to Luxembourg's socioeconomic development. 7. 2. Setting the‘granularity'of priorities The priorities identified by the exercise were set at a level
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011