Interpreting foresight process impacts: Steps towards the development of a framework conceptualising the dynamics of‘foresight systems'Effie Amanatidou a,,
a group of factors leading to innovation-based growth; and a group consisting of what is needed to escape
because knowledge-based economic growth is considered typically to be dependent on innovation. This in turn reveals the importance not only of technological innovations,
but also of social changes and the building of social 4 For an analysis of the major findings of the literature review see 1. 541 E. Amanatidou,
'In turn, the available evidence suggests that technological innovations, as well as the building of social capital, depend upon the degree to
ambiguity and unpredictability have to be nurtured as wellsprings of creativity and innovation. It calls for the establishment of an environment that encourages risk taking
which is held generally to improve the prospects for successful innovation. In parallel, knowledge and skills, are acquired through a variety of learning processes.
and through these to support for innovation-based growth; The alignment of actors'interests, their active participation in dealing with uncertainty, the development of informed publics and, through all of these, to the evolution of strategies to cope with
Supporting innovation-based growth Achievement of long-term reform of the productive system through a raised emphasis on high technology Making the case for increased investment in R&d More informed STI priorities
and institutions and communication between them) Governance and policy-making culture (including levels of commitment) Sociocultural factors in relation to public participation and the perceived utility and eventual impacts of foresight exercises The nature of innovation processes and the‘innovation system'in
and extensive media promotion that raised the profile of science, technology and innovation on the national agenda.
Referring to the innovation system, important factors include the degree of alignment between the (technological) solutions proposed
Social capital and networking and through these to greater support for innovation-based growth; The alignment of actors'interests, their active participation in dealing with uncertainty, the development of informed publics and, through all of these, to the evolution of strategies to cope with
Foresight as a Tool for the Management of Knowledge Flows and Innovation (FORMAKIN), Final report under the TSER Programme Stage II, 2001.5 H. Cameron, L. Georghiou, M. Keenan,
An Evaluation of the Second Round of Swedish Technology foresight, Teknisk Framsyn, 2002 2004,2005. 7 J. Cassingena Harper, L. Georghiou, The targeted and unforeseen impacts of foresight on innovation policy:
the eforesee Malta case study, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 2 (1)( 2005) 84 103.8 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Evaluation of national foresight activities:
Effie Amanatidou holds an MSC in Technical change & Industrial Strategy from PREST/Manchester Institute of Innovation research University of Manchester (UK) and a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics (Greece.
She is currently a freelance research and innovation policy analyst and a part-time Phd researcher at PREST.
She has 10-year experience in policy development and analysis in the field of research and innovation.
Research interests include the areas of research evaluation and impact assessment, foresight, national innovation systems and policies, scientific advice for policy-making and risk governance.
Effie Amanatidou, Research and Innovation policy Analyst, P o box: 1698, Trilofos, P. C. 57500, Trilofos Thessalonikis, Greece.
www. wiseguys. ltd. uk, a company he launched in 2000 to conduct innovation policy research and provide advice to innovation policymakers and administrators.
Previous affiliations include the Science policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University, where he founded and led the EGIST (Evaluation of Government and Industry Strategies for Technology) group;
and Technopolis Ltd, an innovation policy consultancy which he founded in 1989 and which, by the time of his departure in January 2000, had grown to be a leader in its field, with offices in Brighton, Amsterdam, Paris and Vienna.
which the European research and Innovation Area can evolve. Third, skipping the national level, futures are built for the universities themselves,
as well as academics interested in prospective analysis of innovation systems. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Alternative futures for the EU;
The European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities; Trends and drivers for changes; Multilevel governance 1. Introduction The first universities emerged as responses to the need to harness the expanding intellectual forces of the era to the increasingly demanding knowledge requirements of the surrounding society
and economy in the 12th to 15th century in Europe as this major institutional innovation is described by P. A. David, masked in the language of our contemporary discussions of university research and training policies 1,
as the broadest socioeconomic context for universities, with its own science, technology and innovation (STI) policy tools,
It is followed by futures for the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA), 5 as the more immediate surroundings for universities,
and given the intense internationalisation of research and innovation activities, their presence is likely to be pronounced more. 560 A. Havas/Technological forecasting
The theoretical framework of this article rests on the innovation systems school 10 15), and especially its emphasis on the importance of academia industry co-operation 16,17).
and Innovation Area can evolve in different directions, depending on the main features of the EU to a significant extent,
producing and validating new scientific knowledge. 11 From the point of viewofr&dand innovation (RTDI) processes, they have focussed on twomain activities:
The role of users in the innovation process is recognised also now, and become much better understood 26.
e g. universities are assuming essential responsibilities in shaping local, regional, sectoral, national and international production and innovation systems. 22 Fig. 1. The distribution of GERD by R&d performing sectors
(and innovation) projects at a global level and an EU level, as none of the Triad regions let alone individual countries can be self-sufficient.
and (c) can hamper innovation efforts of firms; see, e g. 1, 22,42. 567 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 3. Stronger, better articulated needs for multi-(trans;
Then the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) is taken into account as a‘mezzo level'system.
as well as to the wide range of policies required to promote innovation. Fourth, cohesion is an issue for (a large,
One of the specific guidelines is to improve the knowledge and innovation for growth. More specific areas of interventions include:
facilitate innovation and promote entrepreneurship. 570 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 vis-à-vis competitiveness;
EU funds for RTD infrastructure do not pursue cohesion objectives Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Strong, flexible innovation systems in a large number of regions (with their own specific strengths),
capable of renewal and adaptation to the external environment, underpinning both cohesion and competitiveness Strong, flexible innovation systems in the advanced regions,
however, not Table 2 (continued) ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Intense communication among businesses, academia, policy-makers,
to strengthen weaker innovation systems, including communication, networking and co-operation among key players inside those regions and across regions Ad hoc, weak communication and co-operation among the key players in laggard regions;
weak RTDI policy constituencies Insufficient, halfhearted EU-supported efforts at best to strengthen weaker innovation systems of laggard regions/countries RTDI services (information, consultancy, incubation, etc.
The former policy approach is based on the consideration that Structural Funds used for promoting improved innovation capabilities can lead to faster, more efficient cohesion processes,
with other players in (regional, national, sectoral, international) innovation systems and with the society A new balance of the main activities;
intense interactions with other players in (regional, national, sectoral, international) innovation systems and with the society Universities do not understand/take on their role in addressing societal issues New activities to promote cohesion among EU regions
'not much interactionwith other players in innovation systems and with the society Excessive emphasis on enhancing the competitiveness of EU businesses;
considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area, and then for universities themselves.
and on the‘mission'of the European 578 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Innovation and Research area are made in a transparent and conscious way.
Finally, for disciples of innovation studies, this approach offer three advantages, as opposed to the case
References 1 P. A. David, Europe's Universities and Innovation Past, Present and Future, SIEPR Discussion paper No. 06-10,2006. 2 EC, The role of universities in the Europe
Current Trends and Challenges for the Near future, Final Report, EC DG Research Unit RTD-K. 2 october, 2002.8 LERU, Universities and Innovation:
Technicalchange and Economic theory, Pinter, London, 1988.11 C. Edquist (Ed.),Systems of Innovations: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London, 1997.12 J. Fagerberg, D c. Mowery, R. R. Nelson (Eds.
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford UP, Oxford, 2005.13 C. Freeman, The economics of technical change:
Implications for Innovation policy, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 1999.580 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 15 OECD, New Rationale
and Approaches in Technology and Innovation policy, STI Review, No. 22,1998. 16 OECD, Benchmarking Industry science Relationships, OECD, Paris, 2002.17 W. Polt, C. Rammer, H. Gassler, A. Schibany,
Policy 30 (6)( 2001) 891 903.20 S. Kuhlmann, Future governance of innovation policy in Europe three scenarios, Res.
Basic science and Technological innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D c.,1997 26 E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford UP, Oxford, 1988.27 M. Akrich, R. Miller
of Key Research actors in the European research area, 2005.29 H. Etzkowitz, L. Leysdorff, The dynamics of innovation:
His academic interests are in economics of innovation theory and practice of innovation policy, and technology foresight. In 1997 2000 he was Programme Director of TEP, the Hungarian technology foresight programme.
He has participated in a number of international research projects on STI policies, innovation and transition, as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,
Future-oriented technology analysis Impacts and implications for policy and decision making The unfolding acceleration of global innovation is expected to become the hallmark of the first half of the 21st century.
such as, research and innovation, security and sustainability. The best papers presented in this conference are published in four different scientific journals
innovation are encountered and revealed. The selection of papers provides the practitioners of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA innovation policy development and others inclined toward the provocation of innovation an opportunity to learn some new approaches as well as to reflect further upon some familiar tools such as risk assessment being profiled re within the new context of FTA.
In this way the issue also contributes to an evolving tool bag of diverse and enhanced tools for societally useful global innovation.
The papers and technical notes assembled from the 2008 FTA Conference were selected carefully and further nurtured to bring out three key themes:
adopt and engage novel approaches that will address innovation challenges and change the outlook of many policy makers;
and who seem uncomfortable with the emerging complexity of innovation systems as the key target or client for adaptive policies and new approaches.
probably the most challenging and innovative for policy makers and FTA PROCESS designers is Scott Cunningham's Analysis for Radical innovation.
what will be the next internet innovations? enables a probability model to be constructed that anticipates novel combinations of technologies.
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.
The paper makes a convincing case for how one needs new tools to enable effective international positioning for comparative understanding about national innovation ability and performance.
worldwide competition is increasingly about the attractiveness of innovation systems and thus the capacity to know one's own technological position relative to others represents a new FTA capability with real world predictive performance capacity.
The existence of the Technology barometer is itself a provocative approach to innovation policy futures. From Germany
This well designed process breaks new ground in being concerned explicitly with enabling foresight as a sustainability asset for Germany's status as a R&d-innovation leader with specific elements also aimed at four innovative targets:
and priorities for innovation policy. As well, the interplay between foresight and policy is defined further and elaborated,
examines how vitally important the foresight objective of inclusiveness in the embracement of diverse stakeholders is for the credibility of an innovation process.
and many strategic decision-making processes to align future R&d priorities and innovation strategies with sustainability goals. He holds a Dr. Tech. and a Lic.
Foresight and Innovation strategy, Defence R&d Canada, and Chair of the Foresight Synergy Network of Canada.
Annele Eerola is a Senior Research scientist of the knowledge center‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland.
Hierarchical random graphs Architectural innovation Technology forecasting Design 1. Introduction This paper examines a technique suitable for monitoring
In this section, the paper explicates the social and technological organizational structures which may permit a new era of open innovation.
Chesborough 11 describes a new paradigm of open innovation involving the design of technological systems which, in technological requirements, transcends the boundaries of a single firm.
which to participate in this anticipated new mode of innovation. Given the imperative of new conduct in innovation,
so the authors argue, it is necessary for responsive organizations to restructure themselves to exploit this knowledge environment.
creating software solutions to help innovative organizations develop new technologies within an open innovation environment. Knowledge is structured hierarchically.
may contribute to the process and management of radical innovation 17,18. Radical innovation establishes a new dominant design,
eliminating older ideas, and thereby creating a new set of design concepts and a new configuration of components technologies.
and infrastructural needs of organizations engaged in open innovation. Such organizations, not surprisingly, need access to these distributed databases of knowledge.
Rather, the paper argues that regardless of the particular institutional organizations of innovation which emerge,
Ajax is therefore a particularly good test bed to test new techniques for anticipating architectural innovation. Recognition of this architecture grew only once the component technologies were given the Ajax name 26.
It may be that the various browsers become closely associated with specific innovations in media technology. 4. 3. Interpreting the results Fig. 6 does not label the parent nodes with probabilities because of graphic visibility concerns.
Thus, the hierarchical random graph approach may provide a new forecasting, analysis and design technique for architectural innovation.
there are two different flavors of radical innovation architectural innovation (focusing on links), and radical innovation (focusing on nodes).
Radical innovation combines both aspects of change. We have argued in this paper that many previous technology forecasting techniques have focused only on incremental and dominant designs.
Particularly needed are new techniques for anticipating architectural innovation: an important component of radical innovation. The consequences ignoring of radical innovation are high.
Previous researchers have identified a number of consequences of radical innovation for the poorly prepared firm or country:
high costs, high uncertainty, technological inexperience, business inexperience, lengthy time to market, and the general destruction of firm competence 17,29, 30.
Table 3 Epistemological claims predicated upon the use of a hierarchical random graph. Claim Claimant Data Scientific and technical knowledge consists of a set of interdependent claims Popper 31 Networks of knowledge can be structured readily from science
and technology databases using techniques such as hierarchical random graphs Knowledge claims are heterogenous in character Derrida 32 Networks built upon science
%1146 S w. Cunningham/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1138 1149 Techniques such as the link prediction algorithm described here might assist in radical innovation processes by providing rapid
may contribute to an open innovation paradigm where firms work together as part of an extended technological network 11.
A final note from these results might be directed to assisting innovation theorists. This technological network clearly demonstrated technologies internal and external to the core technology network.
The disassortative character of this network means that architectural innovation is much likely to occur from external technologies.
and Clark 29, is predicated on external sources of innovation. Certainly, this is the class of technological innovations
which are most problematic for forecasting, analysis and design. Nonetheless this leaves the form of architectural innovation whereby innovators explore interactions between routine, highly available components,
relatively unexplored in theory and practice. The consequences of assortative and disassortative architectural networks may be very different across firms and industries.
We suggest that innovation researchers incorporate this new concept into their theories and case studies. 6. Interpretations from the philosophy and sociology of science The hierarchical random graph is one possible model of science, technology and innovation data.
A more fundamental question is whether such a model is consistent with what is postulated about the sociology and epistemology of science.
This technique (and other techniques like it) may see application in open innovation, or the mode 2 of future knowledge production.
and the innovation policy literature, do offer such discussions, even going so far as to prescribe effective means of social organization.
it is not possible to recommend the appropriate form of social organization to enhance innovation. Despite the apparent promise of this approach, the method has only been tried on a single case with limited validation.
undiscovered linkages may be valuable new innovations worthy of research and development. Undocumented linkages may simply reflect out of date source materials.
, Gordon & Breach, New york, 1988.9 J. Terninko, A. Zusman, B. Zlotin, Systematic innovation: an introduction to TRIZ, Florida:
Intell. 91 (2)( 1997) 183 203.11 H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West, Open innovation: Researching a New paradigm Oxford, Oxford university Press, 2006.12 M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, The New Production of Knowledge:
Policy 14 (1985) 235 251.17 J. P. Dismukes, Technologies of thinking'seen key to accelerated radical innovation, Res.
Tech mining to accelerate radical innovation, PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 2007.19 Y. Yasunaga, M. Watanabe, M. Korenaga, Outline of the strategic technology roadmap of METI (Ministry of Trade and Industry
/28 Wikipedia, WAI-ARIA, 2008, Accessed 28 august 2008. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Accessible rich internet applications. 29 R. Henderson, K. M. Clark, Architectural innovation:
Q. 35 (1990) 9 30.30 S g. Green, M. B. Gavin, L. Aiman-Smith, Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation, IEEE Trans.
Scott Cunningham received a Ph d. in Science, Technology and Innovation policy from the Science policy Research Unit.
, A. Klinke A j. Markard A m. Maurer b, A. Ruef a a Department Innovation research in Utility Sectors at The swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Switzerland
at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI, Germany e Technology and Society Unit of The swiss Federal Institute of Materials Science and Technology (Empa
technology and innovation policy 6. Foresight is however much less well developed in strategic planning contexts as it often misses the link between analyzing uncertainties to assessing options
especially in contexts that are otherwise rather averse with regard to innovation 8. Foresight methodologies should therefore not only inform the identification of future context conditions
and prioritize science, technology and innovation policy measures. While the earlier approaches tended to be techno-deterministic,
In corporate contexts, innovation oriented foresight focuses on long term product development strategies or market prospects. Here, foresight is geared towards‘exploration'of longer term strategies in innovation management 31.
Mannermaa 22 emphasizes its role for increasing the scope of strategic alternatives in order to allow for exploring consequences of impossible strategies,
innovation policy in the transport field, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 69 (9)( 2002) 929 951.48 H. Turton,
Eckhard Störmer is a project leader at the Social science Research Department Cirus (innovation research in utility sectors) at The swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag.
Harald Hiessl is head of the Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI and the deputy of this Institute.
Jochen Markard is a group leader for innovation system analysis and transition management at Cirus at Eawag and a lecturer at the University of Lucerne.
whereas in foresight exercises the positive developments like innovation possibilities has Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 Corresponding author.
as well as societal embedding of technological and social innovations. The multiple backgrounds of the team widen the knowledge base,
and research on societal embedding of innovations and new technologies provide some further insights that contribute to the paper.
technology forecasting and technology assessment 1. As noted in Könnölä et al. 2, the gradual paradigm shift in the innovation research
and policy from linear to systemic innovation models has challenged the conventional technocratic and technology oriented forecasstin practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight approaches 3. Also the R&d functions are moving from the basic science
and technology push driven innovation processes to the systemic innovations that emerge close to the market 4. Consequently,
and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system,
In this methodology, the concept of risk iswidened to consider the risks in the innovation processesmay these be either intra-corporate R&dor highly distributed
In FIA the risks are considered as emerging already in the innovation process, and cover such areas as investment, communication, trust and general development risks.
risks and uncertainties related to new businesses (INNORISK) The INNORISK project aims at creating new tools to manage the innovation process
Group (Cofi) of Åbo Akademi Finland and VTT Technical research Centre of Finland financed by the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (TEKES.
All these methods are applied in an innovation process of a new product development. INNORISK project defines the innovation process to include three stages:
opportunity recognition (the fuzzy front end), conceptualisation and commercialisatiion Foresight and risk assessment are essential parts of each stage.
opportunities, threats and weaknesses of the new innovation. In INNORISK project PPA (Potential Problem analysis) is seen as an example of a brainstorming method that can be used to explode the prevailing mind-set in the opportunity recognition and analysis 29.
for example related to resource allocation or the formation of strategic partnerships/joint actions. o Informative outcomes refer to the use of foresight to improve the understanding of present and future challenges of the innovation system and its parts.
Scenario building was based on large and vague trend analysis. The innovation process was seen as a whole. No contribution: the energy production process is noticed component by component. 1173 R. Koivisto et al./
The new approach future-oriented impact assessment (FIA) is seen also promising in integrating methodologically risk assessment into the whole innovation process.
Technology analysis & Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.3 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innov.
Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 4 32.4 K. Smith, Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy, Enterp.
and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards broader concerns including the whole innovation process with its environmental, social and economic perspectives.
The Handbook of Technology foresight, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2008.8 I. Nonaka, H. Takeutchi, The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford university Press, New york, 1995.9
, T. Luoma, S. Toivonen, Managing uncertainty in the front end of radical innovation development, Proc. of IAMOT 2007 16th International Conference on Management of Technology, May 13 17,2007, Florida
Managing commercialisation risks in innovation development: linking front end and commercialisation. In: K. R. E. Huizingh, M. Torkkeli, S. Conn and I. Bitran (eds.
Open innovation: Creating Products and Services through Collaboration. Tours, France, 15 18 june 2008. ISPIM, 2008.37 R. Molarius, N. Wessberg, J. Keränen, J. Schabel, Creating a climate change risk assessment procedure hydropower plant case, Finland,
Dr. Annele Eerola is Senior Research scientist and Deputy Technology manager of the knowledge centre‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT.
including the links between foresight knowledge, corporate strategy and innovation policy. She graduated in Helsinki University of Technology and holds a Phd from Helsinki Swedish School of economics and Business administration
His research is focused on technology foresight, technological transformation of societies, innovation systems and economic geography. He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland.
Her research relates to future-oriented technology assessment and innovation studies. Her special interest lies in enhancing innovations provoked by societal concerns for wellbeing of the aging society and for cleaner environment.
Jouko Myllyoja is Research scientist in Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT. His main focuses of interests are commercializing environmental technologies and sustainable development.
promote innovation, and hopefully improve decisions which incorporate its findings. Thus, these frontiers will serve as important orientation in the elaboration of the second edition of Futures research methodology 2. 1 (CD-ROM) to be published by American Council for the United nations University early in 2005.
He is the innovator of several methods of futures research and author of several books and hundreds of articles dealing with the future research methodology, space, and innovation.
The role of the technology barometer in assessing the performance of the national innovation system Torsti Loikkanen a,,
Along with increasing significance of innovation in socioeconomic development grows the need to utilize future-oriented knowledge in innovation policy-making.
When the worldwide competition is about the attractiveness of innovation systems, such knowledge is important for comparing the innovation performance of nations to other economies.
Finland is among the countries improving her position in worldwide performance comparisons since the late 1990s and reached leading nations in early 2000s.
Innovation policy Science and Technology indicators Barometer Future-oriented knowledge 1. Introduction A growing number of different international comparison systems of the economic and innovation performance of nations have emerged within a decade 2
when competition is not only between multinational and other enterprises but also between economies and innovation systems. Comparisons are based on a number of different indicators,
composite indicators or survey based studies providing comparisons in a wide range of fields like economy, society, education, innovation system, or sustainable development.
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
and methodology Technology barometer is a societal indicator instrument with a strong emphasis on the innovation environment.
The future development of the economy and innovation system will be derived in part from the path dependent historical context
and identifies possible areas for development activities in national innovation policy in the future. Both parts are structured in a similar way enabling the linking of ex-post and ex-ante analyses mutually
The technology barometer instrument utilizes the concepts developed by contemporary social scientists and innovation theorists, such as Bell 8
and dynamics into the analysis. The framework enables the structural comparisons of entire economies, their individual industrial sectors, related R&d and innovation intensities,
Thereby the inclusion of transitional phases of economies to the comparative analyses of economic and innovation systems deepens the understanding of the long-term socioeconomic changes and dynamics.
Moreover, performance comparisons are often based on input data for developing innovation systems, like private and public R&d investments,
In the knowledge-value society, innovation, technology development, economic regeneration, openness to new ideas, and their active exploitation, are all inherent elements contributing to the basic values and culture of the society.
The ultimate goal of innovation activities is to improve the nation's competitiveness so as to promote citizens'wellbeing.
and venturing, innovation networking, and adaptations of innovative practices in a nation. In addition to the three development phases of a modern society, technology barometer considers sustainable development as a fourth object of analysis,
as described above, involved a series of expert panels of the TEK, VTT and innovation policy experts.
and innovation performance of the nation. 3. Results of technology barometer 3. 1. Indicator-based comparison Statistical indicators collected from the eight countries through OECD
Despite the vast amount of interest in the Nordic innovation policy during the last decade, even this approach may have its pitfalls.
the changing role of knowledge-intensive work, innovations and business, and education structures. The first extensive societal issue relates to the role of knowledge-intensive work in Finnish society
The second themeof discussion ismore comprehensive and concerns the future development of innovation and business activities.
the identification of innovation is not a straightforward process for the businesses involved. Unfolding the definition of innovation
and trans-illuminating its meaning and significance at the company level could help businesses identify the various phases of the innovation process,
so as to be able to convert research based ideas into products and commercialize andmarket themwith increasing efficiency.
the technology barometer has proven to be capable of casting additional light on bottlenecks and problem areas within the national innovation environment in Finland.
and its results can be utilized as an aid and support for long-term decisions concerning science, technology, innovation and education.
has generated a vivid national discussion of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future directions of the Finnish economy and innovation system.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 most notably in terms of social needs and innovation policy interest, for the kinds of insights that the technology barometer exercise can deliver.
Section 4. 1 draws conclusions of the experiences and observable impacts of technology barometer as an instrument supporting innovation policy-making
and Section 4. 2 discusses further development perspectives of the barometer in the future. 4. 1. Results of barometer support innovation policy-making One of the strategic aims of technology barometer exercise is to provide guidance on technologies and actions
IMD or European commission, are valuable for decision-makers in innovation policy, but furthermore the related national comparative examination gives additional and more detailed insights into the discussion of the future development of the national economy and innovation system.
On the other hand, scientific approach as such creates a set of boundary conditions in order to avoid compromising too much of the scientific validity of the concept.
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,
This is a clear encouragement to continueworking on the metrics necessary for exemplifying the implications of innovation policy on the society.
moreover on different factors affecting the national economy and innovation system. For example, political changes and elections,
and also transformations in national innovation policies could be triggers of the new barometer exercise. The content of barometer will be developed further in appropriate ways
Recent relatively radical changes of Finnish innovation policy are challenging data basis and indicators of research and innovation,
The scope of innovation policywill be changed strongly towards demand-oriented direction, meaning that themore important role in policywill be given for consumer and user aspects in innovation process.
This change will be promoted also by organizational changes in the public administration of innovation. Moreover the scope of innovation in policy-making will be extended from technological innovation merely towards business innovations and behavioural, organizational and different social innovations.
This development naturally raises new research questions and needs new data and novel indicators to be included in the barometer.
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.
Monitoring the implementation of the recently published National Innovation strategy will be one of the new features to be built into the next barometer rounds
Technology barometer is going to be developed towards an instrument that analyzes innovation systems as far-reaching socioeconomic technical complexes.
In order to respond to the systemic challenges of the innovation policy environment, there is also a need to increase the proactive and future-oriented elements in technology barometer.
in order to grasp and understand the wider systemic challenges of the innovation practices. One new approach to be integrated in the barometer structure in the future can be oriented the future concept of impact assessment
In principle, this concept could be applied in the study of different kinds of societal objects and objectives, related to national innovation system, regions, research programmes or societal actors, engaging private enterprises and public organizations.
) Employment Index (Storrie and Bjurek) Innovation/technology Summary Innovation Index (EC) Networked Readiness Index (CID) National Innovation Capacity Index (Porter and Stern) Investment
and Research Coordinator of innovation and innovation policy studies at VTT. His recent research work is related to the rationales of innovation policy, foresight of technologies (e g. transition towards sustainable energy systems), intellectual property rights,
and impacts of globalization on enterprise R&d, innovation systems and innovation policies. He holds A m. Sc. in economics from Helsinki University.
Toni Ahlqvist is a Senior Research scientist and Team Leader of Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT.
technological transformation of societies, innovation systems and economic geography. He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011