Finland

Finland (248)
Finland futures research centre (5)
Finnish association of graduate engineers (10)
Finnish funding agency for technology (5)
Finnish innovation (8)
Finnsight (64)

Synopsis: Finland:

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

the last one involves the deepest mode of collaboration as the 18 partners from eight countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden,

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.,

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.

reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry, Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 70 88.18 J.,Liesiö, P.,Mild, A.,Salo, Robust Portfolio Modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies, Eur.

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.

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;

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),

Finland and Sweden points to the possibility of a‘reformed European socioeconomic model'46,47. b This vision requires an efficient co-ordination of a number of policies,

and interplay between FTA and RA approaches is considered a necessity at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland for being truly innovative

another Finnish team, bring this novel focus on tools further into the interface with policy approaches in their timely paper on the Role of Technology barometer in Assessing Past and Future development of National Innovation system.

Tech. in systems analysis from the Helsinki University of Technology and MSC in environmental economics from the University of Helsinki.

Annele Eerola is a Senior Research scientist of the knowledge center‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland.

She holds a Phd from the Helsinki Swedish School of economics and Business administration. Her Lic. Tech. and M. Sc. degrees are from Helsinki University of Technology.

Totti Könnölä1 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC-European commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain Corresponding author.

totti. konnola@ec. europa. eu. Jack Smith Defence RD, Ottawa, Canada Annele Eerola VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland 1

Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies Raija Koivisto, Nina Wessberg, Annele Eerola, Toni Ahlqvist, Sirkku Kivisaari, Jouko Myllyoja, Minna Halonen VTT Technical research Centre of Finland

, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history:

VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, P o box 1300, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland. Tel.:++358 20 722 3272.

The authors'involvement in technology assessments studies commissioned by the Parliament of Finland, development of proactive risk assessment methodologies for different corporate risk management purposes (identiffyin the vulnerability of corporate and process actions, managing the risks in occupational, industrial and environmental safety, managing business risks, etc.),

Group (Cofi) of Åbo Akademi Finland and VTT Technical research Centre of Finland financed by the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (TEKES.

as a result of the method development. 3 3. 3. Climate change adaptation and risk assessment (CES) A joint project concerning the climate change adaptation in Finland

The case study focuses on the hydropower plants in the Kemijoki region of northern Finland. A generic model of the risk assessment procedure, applicable within the Nordic countries, will initially be framed.

practices on the basis of European experience, VTT Research Notes, vol. 2174,2002,(in Finnish, abstract in English;

Innorisk-project, www. vtt. fi/innorisk, Managing Opportunities, Risk and Uncertainties in New Business Creation Working Report, VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Tampere

, 2008.30 T. Ahlqvist, VTT Backpocket Roadmap, Instructions for VTT's Personnel, Espoo, Finland, 2007.31 L. Winer, Definitions of SWOTS,,

ISPIM, 2008.37 R. Molarius, N. Wessberg, J. Keränen, J. Schabel, Creating a climate change risk assessment procedure hydropower plant case, Finland,

She graduated in Helsinki University of Technology and holds a Phd from Helsinki Swedish School of economics and Business administration

He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland. Dr. Sirkku Kivisaari works as Senior Research scientist in VTT.

and Process engineering from the University of Oulu, Finland. Minna Halonen (MSC) has been working as Research scientist at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland since 2004.

She graduated in applied geography from the University of Rome La Sapienza in 2003. Her main research interests concern technology foresight, service research and sustainable development. 1176 R. Koivisto et al./

Toni Ahlqvist b, Pekka Pellinen c a VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Vuorimiehentie 5, Espoo 1000, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland b VTT

Technical research Centre of Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 4, Turku 106,20521 Turku, Finland c The Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, Ratavartijankatu 2, 00520 Helsinki, Finland a r t

Finland is among the countries improving her position in worldwide performance comparisons since the late 1990s and reached leading nations in early 2000s.

In The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK) this discussion led to a decision to develop an own comparative exercise together with VTT.

2. Finland has improved her positionamong developed nations according to several internationalperformance comparisons since the latter part of 1990s,

Although Finnish policy-makers, industrial community, scientists and citizens have followed international comparisons and related discussion with great interest,

Gradually this debate led in The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK) to the decision to develop an own national performance comparison.

and strategic perspectives on howwell the Finnish innovation environment is positioned now and how competitive it is assessed

The Finnish association of graduate engineers developed a technology barometer in collaboration with VTT Innovation studies during 2002 2003. The first technology barometer was published in 2004

The purpose of a technology barometer is to give data of how favorable and competitive the Finnish innovation environment is assessed to be now and in the future.

In technology barometer this challenge is solved by dividing the exercise first into a comparison of the performance of the Finnish innovation system with selected nations on a basis of available international indicators

In conjunction with the reform of the Finnish information society strategy, the knowledge society is defined as one where knowledge

The reference group used in the first three implementation rounds consisted of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, The netherlands, Sweden,

According to this index figure Finland rates as second after Sweden in Technology barometer 2007. In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B

). Besides the indicator-based comparative analysis the technology barometer includes a forward-looking survey of future expectations of relevant target groups.

i e. the members of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, young people studying at the senior secondary school level, political decision-makers and business decision-makers.

When assessing societies by information society indicators the Nordic countries particularly Finland and Sweden excel (Fig. 2). This is partly explained by vigorous investments in the development of intellectual capital.

According to the indicators of sustainable development Sweden, Denmark and The netherlands proved to be leading of the rated economies followed by Finland.

Fig. 3 below is a synthesizing presentation of Finland's position according to the 2007 barometer

The indicators depicting below-average position of Finland are located below the centre line. The weakest partial area proved to be the exploitation of ICT.

The questionnaire is addressed to four target groups, Members of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, young people studying at the senior secondary school level, political decision-makers, and business decision-makers.

which a sample was gathered from six senior secondary schools located in different parts of Finland. The respondents

altogether Fig. 3. Positioning Finland in technology barometer 2007: Figure sets out Finland's above-average or below-average rating in comparison to the reference group (the y axis),

and whether any improvement or deterioration has taken place (the x axis) in comparison to the previous survey.

The third group Politicians consists of members of the Finnish Parliament's Committee for the Future, provincial leaders,

The fourth group of respondents, that of Company Executives, was formed from one hundred of the largest Finnish companies measured in terms of their product development investments.

The second part depicts the respondent groups'assessments of Finnish research activities, the prevailing state of technology development and various societal institutions,

According to the results, the Finnish politicians are consistently more optimistic than professional engineers or company executives about the country's techno-economic development.

The first extensive societal issue relates to the role of knowledge-intensive work in Finnish society

what will be the content of knowledge-intensive jobs retained by Finland in future and how should Finland direct

and develop the role of knowledge-intensive work, educational and R&d investment on an extensive basis,

According to PISA comparisons Finland has been successful in basic education and this was indicated also in results of survey study.

the technology barometer has proven to be capable of casting additional light on bottlenecks and problem areas within the national innovation environment in Finland.

has generated a vivid national discussion of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future directions of the Finnish economy and innovation system.

Because the technology barometer is an initiative of The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK), a professional and labour market organization with about 70,000 members,

Recent relatively radical changes of Finnish innovation policy are challenging data basis and indicators of research and innovation,

In Finland, the sectoral research system of government administrations will be renewed, underscoring the following four topics: regional and community structures and infrastructures;

Moreover, the process of developing Finnish national strategic centres for science, technology and innovation is underway in the technology fields with future importance for businesses and the society.

In addition, structural development of Finnish universities towardsmoremanagement-oriented entities is underway. All these changes pose newchallenges to indicator

. Young people's interest in certain professions 4. 3. Knowledge society development 4. 3. 1. Opinions regarding the standard of research and technical development in Finland 4. 3. 2

. Views concerning scientific-and-technical institutions and organizations 4. 3. 3. Views regarding the roles of knowledge and technology in Finnish society

, Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK ry, Artprint Oy, Helsinki, 2004.4 M. Naumanen, Technology barometer, The Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, Painomerkki Oy, Helsinki, 2004.5 M. Naumanen

Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK, Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, 2007.7 O. Lehtoranta, P. Pesonen, T. Ahlqvist, E. Mononen, T. Loikkanen, Technology barometer 2007

Instrument for Measuring Citizens'Attitudes and the Nation's Orientation towards a Knowledge-based Society, The Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, 2007.8 D. Bell, The Coming Post-Industrial Society:

He holds A m. Sc. in economics from Helsinki University. Toni Ahlqvist is a Senior Research scientist

He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland. Pekka Pellinen is the Head of the Technology policy Department of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK.

He, as well as his background organization is maintaining a sustained effort in developing new instruments for informed action for policy-makers.

In Finland, a national foresight reporting mechanism has been institutionalized, requiring the Prime ministers Office to release one report per electoral period addressing a range of long-term issues.

The institutional arrangements in Finland are trend-setting in this regard in particular because Finland involves a modus of interaction between government and parliament.

Several studies point to the need of central coordination and a high political backing, ideally at cabinet level or head of government level,

Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy.

The accident with the Finnish worker opens up nano governance once again and a number of lines of R&d grind to a halt pending further investigation.

One example, Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy) Anticipatory coordination and lock in:

in Finland, sunken investments enable further development (but create constraints later on in the scenario). Focused investments included nanofiltration (for effluent treatment), nanocoatings (for pigment and texture) and nanodiagnostics (for monitoring quality) and nanocharacterisation (for deeper understanding of paper materials.

Other governments look at Finland's targeted explorations and developments in nanotechnology for the paper sector Lock in as path enabling:

other governments look on with envy at the focus of Finnish nanotechnology. This is a mirror of anticipatory coordination in other geographical regions 39,40..

Finland should focus resources on what is most beneficial for us. Other national governments look with envy at the rapidity of developments of the targeted nano programmes of Finland.

Early experiments and high profile projects such as Nano Jury UK and other engagement exercises lead to the inclusion of engagement programmes in technology R&d programmes to inform

Further diagnostics reveal nanoparticulate aggregation directly linked with the Finnish paper mill (specificity of tailored nanoparticles enables the identification of source of particle) Trigger creating window of opportunity for repositioning and realignment of nanotechnology governance:

The Finnish case sparks of a chain of enquiries into nano-regulation, and a number of lines of R&d grind to a halt pending further investigation Finnish case triggers a temporary moratorium:

because of huge sunk investment Finland begins to suffer..Finnish economy begins to suffer due to the high sunk investments into nanotechnology based infrastructure.

Public outcry as consumer organisations identify major issues in a number of sectors which could hold potential risk with no protection for the consumer (the house of cards collapses) Window of opportunity for selectors:

consumers and NGOS are able to raise concerns, the lock in can now be unlocked, and previous (technology promoter dominated) governance arrangements collapse..

While in the annotated scenario, the Finnish worker case, and some of the actions and reactions given are contingent,

the emergence of windows of opportunity for action (stemming from the Finnish worker case being part of the coevollutio of emerging nanotechnology options in paper production and risk and regulation landscape),

entanglements due to sunk investments (Finnish policy), collective decision on technology developer side for soft law, etc.

and analyses Finnsight 2015, a joint foresight exercise that took place in Finland and that would provide inputs for the country's national strategy,

foster collaboration between the two main funding agencies the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes) and promote foresight and innovation activities at large.

Such a description shows how Internet-based tools were critical to support the achievement of expected results within the tight schedule available.

which was driven by the recognition that Finland is strongly dependent on global developments. The objective of encouraging other actors of the R&i system to initiate foresight activities has lead to many spinoof activities,

In particular, Finnish and other Nordic foresight communities have analysed and utilised foresight from this perspective (Eerola et al. 2004;

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

, Helsinki University of Technology, PO BOX 1100, FI-02015 TKK, Finland b Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Edificio Expo, C

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

of Technology, PO BOX 1100, FI-02015 TKK, Finland; binstitute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre of the European commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain In 2005, the Finnish Government

took a decision in principle on the structural development of the public research system. This decision spurred the two main funding agencies theacademy of Finland

and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes) to carry out Finnsight 2015, 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

We also describe the policy context and methodological support of Finnsight: specifically, we report how challenges arising from the tight schedule were addressed through the process design and

In this paper, we describe Finnsight 2015 (henceforth Finnsight for brevity), 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.

In our analysis, we discuss the policy context, management structure, methodological execution and key results of Finnsight.

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,

Section 2 outlines the policy context of Finnsight. Section 3 describes the methodological design, execution and main results of Finnsight and reports subsequent policy developments in the R&i system.

Section 4 examines Finnsight in view of four axes of balance and Section 5 concludes. 2. Finnsight in context In comparison with many other countries,

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.

Kaivo-oja, Marttinen, and Varelius 2002; Andersen et al. 2007. For examplle the Ministry of Trade and Industry has facilitated a so-called Foresight Forum (Könnölä, Brummer, and Salo 2007;

the Finnish Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) has catalysed extensive consultation processes with researchers and industrialists in its strategy developmmen (Salo and Salmenkaita 2002;

and the Finnish innovation Fund (Sitra) has sought to promote a constructive dialogue on impending societal challenges by establishing a So-called future Forum.

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:

for example, once during the electoral period, the Government produces a report on some salient aspects of the future of Finland.

because Finland is a small country: thus, some results from even seemingly isolated foresight activities can be brought to bear on policy making even in the absence of formal coordination,

Edquist 1997) of the Finnish innovation system has remained largely unchanged for some time. As a result, there has been need less for establishing national thematic priorities that would transcend the boundaries of individual organisattion

and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation3 (Tekes) to deepen their collaboration in the context of funding activities and other R&i instruments,

and Technology policy Council of Finland (STPC) should develop by the end June 2006 a national strategy for establishing Strategic Centres of Excellence in Research and Innovation.

In effect, the Government's decision ascribed new tasks to the Academy of Finland and Tekes.

which the apt title Finnsight 2015 was coined implied that a large-scale consultative process was called for, to ensure that the exercise would tap the expertise of leading researchers and industrialists,

and legitimacy. 3. Process design and implementation 3. 1. Early preparations and management structures The initial preparations of Finnsight were started in early 2005 at a time

the President of the Academy of Finland, and Veli-Pekka Saarnivaara, the General Director of Tekes agreed that they would launch a joint foresight exercise

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,

Information and communications) were driven partly by the comparatively strong global positiio of Finland while others (e g.

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

and six industriaalist onto each panel (whereby the Academy of Finland would propose the researchers and Tekes the industrialists).

At this stage, the panel chairmen were invited to comment on the lists of prospective candidates that had been prepared by the Academy of Finland and Tekes.

(i) they were able and willing to contribute to Finnsight and (ii) they could attend the two initial meetings.

so that the first Figure 1. Schematic outline of the schedule of Finnsight 2015. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 992 A. Salo et al. panel meetings were organised only about seven weeks later than the initial meeting of the panel chairmen. 3. 3. Analytical concepts and methodological

The following key concepts and templates were employed in Finnsight: A driving force was defined as an event

to (1) major changes in the global context,(2) growing needs in Finnish industry and society, or (3) anticipated scientific and technological achievements.

so that the other panellists could evaluate the focus areas with regard to (i) current level of expertise in Finland

(i e. how strong a basis do Finnish actors have in the development and applicatiion of knowledge pertaining this focus area of competence?)

2) Because Finnsight was a comprehensive exercise, it was necessary to ensure that no unintennde omissions would arise due to possible misperceptions about

At the first of these meetings, the President of the Academy of Finland and the General Director of Tekes presented the objectives of Finnsight to the panel chairmen who could pose questions of clarification

and economic crisis of 2008 09) was driven by the recognition that Finland is strongly dependent on global developments, due to its relatively small size and the structure of its economy.

The panel reports were published on 13 june 2006 in the Auditorium of the Museum of Contempporar Art (Kiasma) in central Helsinki.

Finnsight received quite a bit of media attention, as evidenced by the large number of related articles in professional magazines, for instance.

or at least informed by Finnsight. In 2006, the STPC6 referred to Finnsight in its comprehensive report

which contained numerous proposals towards the development of the Finnish research and innovation system (STPC 2006).

Also, in the same month when the results of Finnsight were published, the STPC took steps towards the establishment of Strategic Centres for Science,

Technology and Innovation7 in fields that are important to the future of Finnish society and business and industry.

These centres which are organised as nonprofit seeking companies owned by the state, research institutes, universities and private companies will establish new ways of allocating resources to research activities,

Although the establishment of these centres cannot be attributed to Finnsight, the results of Finnsight were published at an opportune moment for the development of the strategic research plans for these centres.

Also, some Finnsight panellists have made contributions to the establishmeen of these centres, which has created informal links between Finnsight and the centres.

Indeed, although the tight schedule of Finnsight was a challenge for the process design, this schedule was justified

nevertheless well by the need to ensure that the results would be made available when needed.

Within the two funding agencies, the Academy of Finland and Tekes Finnsight has served to inform their respective strategies.

In view of citations, Finnsight has served also as a source of information for various regional and organisational strategy processes in Finland.

It has aroused also international interest, considering that references to Finnsight reports have been made in documents published in Japan,

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.

Here, it is noteworthy that Sitra, the Finnish innovation Fund, launched a So-called future Forum already at the time

when Finnsight was running. This forum was organised as a panel-centric process which in contrast to Finnsight, focused on somewhat more general questions of societal well-being and economic policy.

The activities of this forum and Finnsight were loosely coordinated; but not formal links were established (e g. in the sense that the results of the Future Forum would have depended on those of Finnsight.

Furthermore, in 2007 the Ministry of Trade and Industry started a process towards the establisshin a National Innovation strategy,

with the aim of paving the way for measures that the broadening scope of innovation policies would call for.

This workshop-based process focused on 11 themes of which addressed structural issues (e g. regional innovation policy;

intellectual properrt rights; demand-orientation of innovation 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

thus complemented those of Finnsight which purposely did not address structural questions. Building on the National Innovation strategy, the Governmeen has produced its Report on Innovation policy

Axes of balance in Finnsight Although formal evaluation of Finnsight has been carried out, the panellists were asked

and 88%thought that Finnsight will be important to the development of the Finnish R&i system.

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;(

Along this axis, it is noteworthy that the Finnsight reports were published in June 2006 when the Government took decisions towards the implementation of a national strategy in which the establishment of Strategic Centres of Science,

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,

For instance, Finnsight synthesised consensual information about overarchiin developments that were relevant to many organisations in the R&i system (e g. universities, industrial federations, private enterprises.

Finnsight was unequivocally characterised by exclusive stakeholder engagement. This was partly because the panel approach, together with the tight schedule,

Along this attribute, Finnsight was closer to the consensual approach. To some extent, this was

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,

the partial autonomy that was given to the chairmen also served to empower them. 5. Discussion We conclude with a few methodologically oriented observations on Finnsight.

in terms of its methodological approach, Finnsight was unique thanks to the extensive combination of internet-based questionnaires and facilitated workshops.

In hindsight, the development of novel methodological approaches in Finnsight most notably the definition of dedicated units of analysis (driving forces, focus areas of competences) and the extensive deployment of internet-based tools for engaging the panel

Notes on contributors Ahti Salo is a professor at the Systems analysis Laboratory of the Helsinki University of Technology.

Ville Brummer is a researcher at the Systems analysis Laboratory of the Helsinki University of Technology.

and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European commission. 2. The Academy of Finland is comparable to the US National science Foundation

See http://www. tekes. fi/en/community/Home/351/Home/473 for details. 4. The funding decisions of the Academy of Finland are taken by external scholars (usually university professors) who serve on its councils

Basic conceptions and visions of the regional foresight system in Finland. Foresight 4, no. 6: 34 45.

Developments in parliamentary technology assessment in Finland. Science and Public policy 28, no. 6: 453 64. Salo, A,

reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1, no. 1 2: 70 88.

Helsinki: Ministry of Education. http://www. minedu. fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Tiede/tutkimus-ja innovaationeuvosto/TTN/julkaisut/liitteet/Review 2006. pdf?

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011