*Ron Johnston2 and Fabiana Scapolo3 1mark Boden, European commission Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain 2professor Ron Johnston, Australian Centre for Innovation
These papers examine the reorientation of research and innovation systems and the integration of FTA within them.
and the issues it brings to prominence need to catalyse major innovation in organisations and governance.
what is the possibility and role of innovation, and what are the key policy messages.
in applying FTA to their own innovation activities as well as those of key stakeholders. Embedding foresight into and across national,
and increasinngl transnational, research and innovation systems can be seen to offer the most effective approach to meeting crosscutting societal challenges.
Cagnin, Amanatidou and Keenan address the roles that FTA can play in orienting the innovation system to more effectively address the grand challenges.
Valovirta and Loikkanen describe the developmmen of a new policy instrument, innovation policy roadmapping, and its role in assisting in aligning technologgica and societal perspectives with the more visionary framework necessary to address grand challenges.
This instruumen adapts the methodology of technology roadmapping to addressing critical innovation policy challennge at the level of national and regional innovation systems, within a global context.
and a planning approach that attempts to identify innovation application points. These features impact directly on the client's perceived ability and engagement.
technological and innovation‘think tank'created in 2001. It has been qualified as a‘social organization'by the Brazilian Presidency,
and is supervised by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Its inception was part of government efforts to promote science, technology and innovation (ST&I) develoopmen in Brazil in order to advance economic growth, competitiveness and well-being.
Its scope covers three integrated themes: strategic foresight exercises (future studies; strategic evaluation of large programs and projects;
A case study of a strategic organizational foresight execise at the Brazilian Innovation Agency (FINEP), which focused on the knowledge required for a given exercise to achieve the desired outcomes is discussed in Section 5. Finally,
when we observe the emergence of problems related to the need to coordinate new forms of research and innovation organization,
demands may be associated with innovation, competitiveness, long-term government planning, subsidies to S&t public policies, and the future of complex themes, such as climate change, demography, biodiversity, bioethanol, energy efficiency etc.
which is also known as the Brazilian Innovation Agency (Coelho et al. 2011). The following items are presented:.A brief description of FINEP's context..
FINEP is one the main agencies under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MCTI.
All phases of the innovation value chain are being mapped by FINEP in order to define strategies and instrumeent for funding
and trends in intellecctua property rights (IPR) Mapping S&t national capacity according to data available in CNPQ/Lattes databases and Innovation Portal Expert panels to debate the following themes:
and expand its current position as the main public innovation agency in Brazil, over the next 15 years.
and the types of policies required to foster innovation in the future. Other than this study, foreign experts gave lectures
when foresight exerccise and innovation strategies are applied to new future possibilities in academia. Some of the intangible gains must be highlighted
2011)‘ Strategic foresight applied to the management plan of an innovation development agency',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 24: 267 83.
Basic books. Kelley, T. and Littman, J. 2001) The Art of Innovation. New york: Currency/Doubleday. Miles, I.,Harper, J. C.,Georgiou, L.,Keenan, M. and Popper, R. 2008)‘ The many faces of foresight'.
Moorcroft, S. 2009) Trends Affecting Innovation policies, and Promotion. London: Shaping Tomorrow. Popper, R. 2008)‘ Foresight methodology'.
Aside from contributing to the understanding of China's research and innovation policy and system, this paper provides insights into policy change in China more generally and also into the processes
China, science policy, research, innovation. 1. Introduction and problem definition In recent years, there has been a rapidly growing interest in the development of science, technology and innovation (STI) in the People's republic of china.
They claim that the current research system‘wastes resourrces corrupts the spirit and stymies innovation'(Shi and Rao 2010.
institution-and capacity-building and governance refer to efforts aimed at creating basic foundations for research and innovation.
‘highly systemic'in the sense that the focus was on reshaping the division of labor and the interaction between producers and users of knowledge and innovation.
Throughout the era, Chinese leaders have pointed to science as a key to economic progress and competitiveness, most recently through the concept of‘scientific development'and the launching of the indigennou innovation strategy (e g.
on‘indigenous innovation'as beacons of policy-making more generally, are examples of the first level of priority-setting,
indigenous innovation (zizhu chuangxin), leapfrogging in key areas (zhongdian kuayue), supporting economic and social development (zhicheng fazhan), leading the future (yinling weilai).
1986 National High-technology R&d Program (863 Program) 1986 Foster China's overall innovation capacity in high-tech sectors and enhance its international competitiveness Spark Program 1986
on Key Basic research Priorities (973 Program) 1997 Support basic research Innovation Fund for Technology-based SMES 1999 Support innovative activity by high-tech SMES Special
The concentration of resources in mission-and excellencefoccuse programs reflects a long-lasting orientation in Chinese research and innovation policy
200 103 178 150 Special Technology development Project for Research institutions 158 214 193 183 186 200 250 250 Innovation Fund for Small Technology
and sometimes overwhelming, mission orientation, often identifying specific areas where radical innovations are sought. The 16 Mega-engineering Projects identified in the last MLP are selected clearly missionorieented to address major economic and societal needs,
improve China's indigenoou innovation capability, and improve industrial competitiveenes and upgrade in general. While the mission orientation has remained prominent throughout the history of the People's republic of china,
By strengthening innovation capacity in selected fields it aims to improve the international competitiveness of major industries.
as well as the identification of public procurement to promote enterpriises innovation capability. The Innovation Fund for SMES,
which provides loans to high-tech SMES, is another diffusion measure, as are the Agricultural S&t Transfer Fund and the New National Products Program.
when a country has developed insufficiently capital markets compared with countries where there are mature markets and channels for innovation funding.
As a result, there is a severe shortage of innovation funding, particulaarl for private firms and for SMES (The Economist 2009;
The Knowledge Innovation Program (KIP) launched in 1998 by the CAS is expected to result in a select group of research institutes
The MOST propagated the idea that China should pursue the idea of‘indigenous innovation 'or‘homegrown innovation'and strive to reduce China's dependence on foreign Technology research priority setting in China. 267 (Mei and Luo 2005).
In contrast, some economists, such as Justin Yifu Lin, argued that the country should continue to rely on China's comparative advantages (Lin et al. 2003.
and diplomats on how they viewed the term‘indigenous innovation'(zizhu chuangxin). Overall, the processes surrounding priority-setting in China's national S&t programs are characterized by formal and elaborate processes with an emphasis on input by scientific experts,
as a leader in innovation, but also a society balancing economic growth with social stabillit and ecological balance.
In themselves, the MLPS represent an important articulattio of science and innovation policy with the broader fields of policy:
for instance‘harmonious society'and‘indigennou innovation',indicating the contributions and frameworks of STI governance with broader policy process.
Hence, the plans function as a discursive framing of science and innovation policies into the broader project of societal modernization,
and that hundreds of suggestions had been given by the public (Shi 2004) References Block, F. and Keller, M. eds)( 2011) State of Innovation:
Braun, D. 2008)‘ Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies',Science and Public policy, 35: 227 39.
D'Costa, A. and Parayil, G. 2009) New Asian Dynamics in Science, Technology and Innovation.
Foray, D. 2000)‘ On The french system of innovation: between institutional inertia and rapid changes'Paper prepared for the workshop on Innovation Paradigm:
The Impact of Economic Ideas on RTD Policies, 4s/EASST Conference 2000, held 27 30 september 2000, Vienna.
Gu, S. and Lundvall, B.-A°.(2006)‘ China's innovation system and the move towards harmonious growth and endogenous innovation'.
Jakobson, L.,(ed.),2007) Innovation with Chinese Characteristics: High-tech Research in China. New york: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kroll, H.,Conle',M. and Schu ller, M. 2010)‘ China innovattio system and innovation policy'.'In:
Frietsch, R. and Schu ller, M. eds) Competing for Global Innovation Leadership: Innovation systems and Policies in the USA, Europe and Asia, pp. 241 63.
Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Verlag. Laredo, P. and Mustar, P.,(eds),(2001) Research and Innovation policy in the New Global economy.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lin, J. Y.,Cai, F. and Li, Z. 2003) The China Miracle:
Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation systems (VINNOVA. Liu, F.-C.,Simon, D. F.,Sun, Y.-T. and Cao, C. 2011)‘ China's innovation policies:
Evolution, institutional structuure and trajectory',Research policy, 40: 917 31. Lv, W. 2007)‘ Enhancing the basic role of knowledge innovattio in the innovation system',China Development Review, 9: 38 47.
Marginson, S. 2006)‘ The Angloamerican university at its global high tide',Minerva, 44:65 87. Mu, R. and Qu, W. 2008)‘ The development of science and technology in China:
Paris..(2008) OECD‘Reviews of Innovation policy: China',Synthesis Report. OECD: Paris. Pielke, R. 2007) The Honest Broker.
Suttmeier, R. P.,Cao, C. and Simon, D. 2006)‘ Knowledge innovation and the Chinese Academy of Sciences',Science, 312/5770: 58 9. US Embassy Beijing.
Zhang, C.,Zhihua Zeng, D.,Mako, W. P. and Seward, J. 2009) Promoting Enterprise-Led Innovation in China.
National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: The case of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology and agricultural biotechnology innovation systems (1945 2000) Chao-chen Chung1 1manchester Business school, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK.
Present address: 10f.7, No. 57, Ln. 136, Xuefu Rd. Tamsui Dist.,New Taipei City 251, Taiwan (R. O. C.;
the sectoral and the technological innovation systems and defines the configuration of these three innovation systems as the national, sectoral and technological innovation systems (NSTISS).
and agricultural biotechnology innovation systems we find that even within the same nation different NSTISS reveal different dynamics, in terms of actors and networks, the application of technology and knowledge and institutions.
technology development and innovation policies should be customized according to the differing dynamics of the NSTISS. Keywords: innovation system; Taiwan;
biotechnology; pharmaceuticals; agriculture. 1. Introduction Over the last two decades scholars working on innovattio systems have established different ways in
The national innovation system focuses on the innovation process within the geographical space of nations (Lundvall 1992;
while the sectoral innovation system emphasizes the innovation of a particulla set of products (Malerba 2002).
The technological innovation system uses a specific knowledge field to draw the boundary of an innovation system (Carlsson et al. 2002;
The configuration of the differeen levels of innovation systems has been discussed to a certain extent (Markard and Truffer 2008.
Consequently, this paper discusses the configuration of innovation systems at three levels: national, sectoral and technological.
We intend to draw the boundary for the‘new'innovation system which is embedded in the configuraatio of the three innovation systems.
Moreover, to understand the evolution of the new innovation system we not only examine the components of the innovation system,
but follow Malerba's analysis (Malerba 2005) and explore the changes in the relationships between these components over time.
play an essential role in shaping and fosteriin the development of an innovation system, in this paper we will pay special attention to the role of national institutions in the development of new innovation systems.
Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 271 281 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs008 Advance Access published on 11 march 2012 The Author 2012.
journals. permissions@oup. com The government's research, technology development and innovation (RTDI) policies, which are special forms of national institutions
(i e. pharmaceuticals and agriculture) provide an interesting case for our discussiion Historical records for the period 1945 2000 in Taiwan clearly show the process through which the three innovation systems,
i e. the national innovation system of Taiwan, the sectoral innovation systems for pharmaceuticcal and agriculture, and the technological innovation system for biotechnology,
gradually configured each other. Indeed, the pharmaceutical and the agricultural sectors not only possessed contrasting opportunities for the development of biotechnology,
within the same national border of Taiwan differren configurations of the three innovation systems show different dynamics,
To set up a more profound discussion of the configurattio of the three innovation systems we structure the rest of this paper as follows:
Section 2 reviews the literature on innovation systems. On the basis of the literature we conceptualize the configuration of the three innovation systems.
Section 3 analyzes the evolution of the Taiwanese innovation systems for biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and agriculture through the lens of the configuration of the three innovation systems.
Section 4 discusses our concepptua and empirical contributions, draws conclusions and makes suggestions for future research. 2. Literature review
and the configuration of the innovation systems The conception of the configuration of the three innovattio systems is established on the theoretical foundations of different system approaches.
before we build the new concept for an innovation system we first review the key concepts of each approach,
A national innovation system focuses on the national development of technology and industries. The national frontiers draw the boundary of an innovation system.
The institutional actors, such as firms and industrial laboratories, universities and government laboratories, and their networks constitute the national innovation system (Nelson and Rosenberg 1993).
Through comparing the similarities and differences across countries the approach illustrates how the institutions and mechanisms of a nation support technological and industrial innovattio within its borders (Nelson and Rosenberg 1993;
From Freeman's perspective (1987) research, technology development and innovation (RTDI) policies extensively shape the national system of innovation.
The sectoral innovation system recognizes a system as a set of products which are developed in a global context.
A sectoral innovation system, as analyzed by Malerba (2004), should have a set of specific knowledge bases, inputs and demands.
and institutions are the three blocks of a sectoral innovation system. National institutioons from the perspective of Malerba (2002), should match the sectoral innovation system within the national borders.
The technological innovation system is defined in the sense of a knowledge field which has developed globally. As speculated by Carlsson et al.
2002), within a particular knowledge field the actors, including the buyers and sellers, of a dynamic network interact in a specific economic or industrial arena
Technological generatiion diffusion and utilization are at the core of the analysis. Comparing the energy innovation systems of Germany, Sweden and The netherlands,
especiaall government policies, do influence the performance of a nation's technological innovation system. According to the literature an innovation system is composed of actors and networks
technology and knowledge, and institutions. However, because a different system approach uses different criteria to draw the boundary of an innovation system,
the components and their interactions in the configuration of the different levels of innovation systems remain unclear.
Bergek et al. 2008) have specified only that a technological system may be a sub-system of a sectoral innovation system
or may cut across several sectoral innovation systems. Malerba (2004) 272. C.-C. Chung has tried also to link the relationships within a sectoral innovation system to a country's international performannce as well as a sector to the technological opportunities which can be mobilized to develop new products and processes for that sector.
Markard and Truffer (2008) made one of the first attempts to concretely show the configuration of the three innovation systems within one diagram.
From their perspective (see Fig. 1 a national system is delineated on a spatial basis, while a sectoral system usually crosses a geographical boundary,
and a technological innovation system typically crosses both geograpphica and sectoral boundaries. Nevertheless, Markard and Truffer did not go beyond their diagram to concretely define
and explain the intersections between the three innovaatio systems. Based on Markard and Truffer's diagram (Markard and Truffer 2008), we redraw the relationships of the three innovaatio systems (see Fig. 2)
and define the configuration of the three innovation systems as the NSTIS. We assume that the system exists within a particular national border
as the three innovation systems, is composed of actors and networks, technology and knowledge, and institutions. The components of the system are shaped by national institutions.
such as government documents and the historical records of the institutions embedded in the innovation systems, we will discover how the technological innovattio system for biotechnology gradually emerged with the Taiwanese national innovation system,
as well as the sectoral innovation systems for pharmaceuticals and agriculture. Figure 1. Potential relationships between national (NSI) and sectoral (SSI) systems of innovation and a technological innovattio systems (TS.
Source: Markard and Truffer (2008. Figure 2. Relationship of national, technological and sectoral innovation systems and NSTIS.
National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: Taiwan. 273 3. The Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology and agricultural biotechnology innovation systems This section analyzes the history of biotechnology and the two sectors in Taiwan through the lens of the NSTIS.
We especially focus on the components of each NSTIS and the changes in their interactions over time.
In order to give a relatively precise view to the long history, we particularly single out the years 1945
and 1982 as milestones. 1945 was the year when Japan returned Taiwan to the Republic of china (ROC).
We discuss the evolution of the pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system in Section 3. 1 and the evolution of the agricultural biotechnology innovation system in Section 3. 2. 3. 1 The evolution of the Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system
Indeed, the companies that invested in the innovation of Chinese herbal medicines only carried out detailed research related to these single herbal extracts.
a public research organization, was set up in National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: Taiwan. 275 1984 to apply the research into small molecules from the universities to develop new chemical medicines and then transfer such technologies to local firms.
as policies graduaall turned to encouraging innovation in the pharmaceuticca sector, R&d policies became more and more significant.
Policies of regulation, FDI and R&d were directed towards the pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system. The Law of Pharmaceutical Affairs was passed in 1970
Only in the late 1990s did the government start to support the development of modern pharmaceutical biotechnnolog through supporting the innovation of new herbaceous medicines. 3. 2 Evolution of the Taiwanese agricultural biotechnology innovation system 3. 2
The institutions for the innovation of seeds were originally set up by the Japanese government and further developed by the government of the ROC after 1945.
were the most important organizations for seed innovation. These research organizattion were funded fully by the Japanese government during the Japanese colonization and then by the governmeen of the ROC.
They were not sufficient for them to reinvest in seed innovation (Liu 1996: 188). ) The institutions for seed innovation remained almost the same until 2000.
However, the introduction of modern biotechnology in the 1980s extensively changed the knowledge and technology used for seed innovation.
The modern biotechnology of genetic modification was introduced to the ASS through a group of Taiwanese scienttist who were trained in the USA.
and expanded to the innovation of new species of livestock, such as farm animals and aquaculture, the modern techniques of genetic modification were adopted to improve the genes of particular seeds,
which played supplementary roles in the innovation of seeds. These companies usually focused on specific types of seeds
Moreover, throughout Taiwanese agricultural history, MNCS such as Monsanto, have not played any role in seed innovation in Taiwan. 3. 2. 2 Universities and their networks.
However, because a network between universities was not establisshed the research topics were chosen usually according National, sectoral and technological innovation systems:
The two main agricultural policies promoting agricultuura biotechnology innovation system were agricultural R&d and regulation policies.
Before the 1980s, there was no policy regulating the innovation of seeds. With the developmmen of GMOS in the 1980s,‘Genetic Modified Safety Rules'were implemented in the labs. Yet, besides field trials,
Even though the technological level of the agricultural biotechnollog innovation system was very high due to the governmment'policies, these biotechnologies were commercialized seldom. 4. Discussion
and conclusion The Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system and agricultural biotechnology innovation system reveal different dynamics. The three innovation systems,
i e. the Taiwanese national innovation system, the two sectoral systems of pharmaceuticals and agriculture, and the technological innovation system for biotechnology, were configured differently.
Different NSTISS not only had different components, but also evolved differently. Based on the empirical case of Taiwan we raise four interesttin issues
which deepen our understanding of the concept of NSTISS. Firstly, the actors and networks of different NSTISS may differ from each other
in the pharmaceuticca biotechnology innovation system local SMES led the innovation and manufacturing. MNCS were involved only once in the manufacturing activities of the system
However, in the agricultuura biotechnology innovation system the public research organizations, the ASS, were the foundations on
which innovation was built. Local private agricultural SMES only played a supplementary role in innovation and targeted those products
which were innovated not yet by the public organizations. Universities were involved mainly in the innovation through the network with the public research organizations.
Only in the 1990s did some universities occasionally transfer modern biotechnology to agricultural SMES. In brief, within the same nation different NSTISS may involve different groups of actors
In the case of Taiwan there is no‘set of national institutions'directed towards the overall national innovation system.
Even though the system certainly adopted biotechnnolog for innovation, the commercialization of agriculttura biotechnology was encouraged not by policies.
With the new concept of an innovation system the NSTIS, the RTDI policies which can appropriately foster the development of an innovation system,
can be reanalyzed. As shown above different NSTISS may have different actors and networks, as well as different applicatiion of a particular technological field for different sets of products.
and encourage the production and innovation of a particular set of products. Indeed, new RTDI policies should be customized to deliberately match the different dynamics of different NSTISS
rather than the dynamics of the national, sectoral or technological innovation system alone. Moreover, since the national institutions of different NSTISS may have different origins,
Since each NSTIS is unique, National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: Taiwan. 279 RTDI policies copied from foreign countries
Their rigorous and constant support fundamentaall incentivized the writing of this paper and considerabbl increased the depth of the analysis of the innovation systems.
References Bergek, A.,Jacobsson, S.,Carlsson, B.,Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. 2008)‘ Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems:
Carlsson, B.,Jacobsson, S.,Holme'N m. and Rickne, A. 2002)‘ Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues',Research policy, 31: 233 45.
Dodgson, M.,Mathews, J.,Kastelle, T. and Hu, M.-C. 2008)‘ The evolving nature of Taiwan's national innovation systems:
the case of biotechnology innovation networks',Research policy, 37: 430 45. Dr. Chip. 2010), Products. Dr. Chip:<
Edquist, C. and Hommen, L.,eds,(2008) Small Country Innovation systems: Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe.
Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004)‘ The reconfiguration of national innovation systems the example of German biotechnoology'Research policy, 33: 395 408.
Lundvall, B.-A.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interaction. London: Pinter.
Malerba, F. 2002)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation and productioon'Research policy, 31: 247 64..(2004)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation:
basic concept and issues'.'In: Malerba, F. ed.)Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe, pp. 9 35.
Cambridge: CUP..( (2005)‘ Sectoral innovation systems: how and why innovattio systems differs across sectors'.'In: Nelson, R.,Mowery, D. and Fagerberg, J. eds.
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 380 406. Oxford: OUP. Markard, J. and Truffer, B. 2008)‘ Technological innovattio systems and the multilevel perspective:
Towards an integrated framework',Research policy, 37: 596 615. Mckelvey, M. 1996) Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology.
Oxford: OUP. Mckelvey, M.,Orsenigo, L. and Pammolli, F. 2004)‘ Pharmaceutical analyzed through the lens of a sectoral innovaatio system'.
Malerba, F. ed.)Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues, and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe, pp. 73 119.
Nelson, R.,ed.,(1993) National Innovation systems: A Comparative analysis. Oxford: OUP. Nelson, R. and Rosenberg, N. 1993)‘ Technical innovation and national systems'.
'In: Nelson, R. ed.)National Innovation systems: A Comparative analysis, pp. 3 20. Oxford: OUP. NSC 2010.
Background of National science and Technology Program for Bio agriculture. National science and Technology Program for Bio agriculture<http://dpiab. sinica. edu. tw/intro. php>accessed 14 december 2010.
OECD. 1999) Managing National Innovation systems. OECD: Paris. Senker, J. 2004)‘ An overview of biotechnology in Europe:
A review of the past and projectiio for the future',Forum for Agricultural Innovation and Development Council of Agriculture, 26 nov 2004, pp. 15 21.
Wong, J.-W. 1998)‘ The relationship between bureaucratic organizzatio and agricultural innovation: Taking Agricultural Experiment Station as example'(:
National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: Taiwan. 281
Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play Cristiano Cagnin1*,Effie Amanatidou2 and Michael Keenan3 1dg Joint research Centre Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies
(JRC-IPTS), Seville, Spain; and Center for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE), SCN Quadra 2, Bloco A, Ed. Corporate Financial center, 11andar, Sala 1102, CEP 70712-900, Brazil 2manchester
Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK 3directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD,
and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK*Corresponding author.
cristianocagnin@gmail. com A strong research and innovation policy discourse has emerged in recent years around the need to address‘grand challenges',particularly at EU level.
It takes a‘systems of innovation'approach and focuses on the structural and functional aspects of such systems to consider the relevant roles of fta.
in order to effectively reorient the EU's innovation systems towards grand challenges. Keywords: innovation systems; grand challenges; european union; foresight; technology assessment. 1. Introduction Recent years have seen a great deal of discussion on how science,
technology and innovation (STI) systems might be reoriented to better address several grand challenges that affect not only contemporary societies but also the future of human civilisation itself.
This is part of a new mission-led approach to innovation policy that is more global in outlook and oriented towards more societal goals.
It differs from an earlier mission-led period (1940s and 1950s) that was focused more nationally
In this regard, it is important to recognise that innovation can just as much exacerbate the problems associated with grand challenges as it can contribute to their solutions.
STI agendas should seek to better orient innovation activities along more sustainable pathways that enable positive transformations of socio-technical systems
Certain traditions in the FTA family of approaches, particuularl technology assessment, have taken the reorientatiio of technological trajectories and innovation activities as an explicit goal.
and positively transformatiiv innovation practice to develop, and if it does so, the supporting roles that FTA might play, especially in relation to newly established EU instruments.
this paper starts (Section 2) by presenting the basic elements of innovation and the need for an operational agenda that takes into consideration a context-sensitive approach required to address specific challenges.
Section 3 describes the working of innovation systems around their structural elements focused on actors'capabilities, the scale and nature of system interactions,
Section 5 then explores the roles of fta in enabling a shift in innovation foci towards grand challenges.
which are transposed onto specific contributions to innovation system functions. Section 6 discusses the associated implicattion for international EU research
and innovation collaborration the degree to which recent developments cover the identified needs in the reorientation and governing of innovation systems and STI policies,
Section 7 draws some conclusions. 2. Innovation: Some essentials If innovation is to contribute to solving some of the grand challenges of our time,
it is important to set out some sort of baseline as to what it is, how it is practiced and by whom,
In other words, it is important to move beyond the often glib political statements of the importance of innovation for grand challenges
Orienting European innovation systems. 141 Innovation refers to a process of introducing a new product process, service or organisational form into the marketplace and the social sphere (OECD and Eurostat 2005;
This suggests there are many potential levers for shaping the direction of innovation towards grand challenges. At the same time, innovation is a systemic phenomenon by nature as it results from the continuing interaction between different actors and organisations (Freeman 1970.
This means that a firm does not innovate in isolation but rather in interacttio with its environment.
to shape with a view to directing innovation in a predictabbl top-down manner. This has implications for any attempts at guiding innovation activities towards grand challenges.
Innovations can be radical and disruptive but often result from a long process involving many interrelated innovaation (Rogers 1995;
Freeman and Soete 1997. Furthermore, many economically significant innovations occur while a product or process is being diffused
since the introduction of something‘new'in a different context often implies adaptation and technology transfer and/or organisational changes (Hall and Rosenberg 2010).
when linking innovation agendas to grand challenges as it will likely act as a barrier to the radical changes that are needed probably.
It is also important to highlight that the factors influencing innovation differ across industries, and this has implications for policy (Fagerberg et al. 2004).
and that will be affected. 3. Innovation systems and their functioning Thus, innovation can be understood as a systemic activity,
with firms and other innovating actors operating in linked environments of institutions and other actors.
In this view, national innovation systems are complex constructs, displaying a variety of structures in a range of contexts and performing various functions.
The advantages of thinking in terms of innovation systems is that they provide a more complete picture of the topography of innovation-relevant actors and the relations between them
Innovation system analysis often takes as its starting point the system's structure. It is here that innovation system failures that demand policy attention tend to be identified,
focused around actors'capabilities, the scale and nature of system interactions, and the workings of institutions (Arnold 2004;
In many innovation systems, such organisations are either missing or are developed weakly, thereby hindering system performance.
cooperation and interactive learning are central to the process of innovation. Such interactions involve not only firms (though these are more common),
C. Cagnin et al. for innovation systems, since cycles of learning and innovation are less likely to become established
when system connectivity is poor. However, higher levels of interaction need not necessarily be better for innovattio system functioning either.
Hence, when innovation systems need to be reoriented, a lot of unlearning and disruption of existing linkages will be required as part of the processes of transformative change..
and regulations) and soft institutions (e g. social norms and values) that can enable or hinder innovation.
Extending the heuristic construct of systems of innovation some authors (e g. Bergek et al. 2008) have recommended the functions of innovation system as an alternative point of analytical departure. 1 Such functional analysis,
which is intended to supplement rather than substitute for more traditional structural analysis, implies a focus on the dynamics of
what is achieved actually in an innovation system. This is a potentially useful perspective for efforts directed at reorienting innovation systems towards grand challenges.
Drawing upon a mix of sources (Bach and Matt 2005; Bergek et al. 2008; Edquist 2008;
Woolthius et al. 2005), the following six‘high-level'functions of innovation systems can be identified:.Facilitate experimentation and learning:
safeguarding‘variety'in the innovation system is key given the uncertainties that follow from new combinations of knowledge, applications and markets.
this is considered to be the most basic function of innovation systems without which nothing else would happen.
given the distributed nature of knowledge production, knowledge diffusion is an essential function of innovation systems. Diffusion may be mediated through networks for example,
it is important for innovation systems to be able to guide actors in selecting options for investment.
particularly for radical innovatiions The innovation system therefore needs to create spaces, for example, through procurement policies, standards or regulations that nurture demand for innovations..
an important function of innovation systems concerns the development and mobilisation of human resources, financial capital and complementary assets (e g. infrastructures.
The mobilisation of resources has important consequences for knowledge development activities. 4. Orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges The special nature of the requirements of grand challenges to find effective solutions brings to the fore concepts such as transformative
and social (for the public good) innovation (Depledge et al. 2010). Furthermore, grand challenges cannot be dealt effectively with through technological innovaation alone.
as well as social innovations promoting non-technological solutions. The challenge is for business, governments and societies to align
and Orienting European innovation systems. 143 evolve into this new direction, identifying alternative solutiion and moving away from the current state of affairs.
The structural and functional elements of innovation systems presented above highlight sites for exploitation and intervention in support of grand challenges.
if innovation systems are to be oriented towards grand challenges. Starting with the structural elements, the global charactte of grand challenges and their boundary-spanning nature:
and wider variety of actors involved in innovation systems. Indeed, right at the outset, a more transformative innovattio sets a responsibility to catalyse
and focus of business actors in engaging with innovation, since certain grand challenges call for social responsibility
or stakeholder theory, in which business organisations increasingly promote innovation in their social and environmental policies (Smith 2000).
Turning to the functions of innovation systems presennte earlier, Table 1 uses these to map a number of actions conducive to systemic reorientation towards grand challenges.
Clearly, the eorientation of innovation systems places particular demands on STI policy and the governance of innovation systems.
In this regard, FTA as a tool of governance could have a promising role to play in reorienting innovattio systems towards grand challenges. 5. FTA for orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges Th paper takes FTA to refer to systematic processes
which many potential levers for shaping the direction of innovation can be identified (e g. regulatory, financial, consumer behaviour etc.).
They can also assist in managing the uncertainty associated with innovation activities and with the future more broadly by providing spaces for policy,
C. Cagnin et al. between policy‘silos'and thereby support the emergence of an effective policy mix for innovation.
Thus, FTA can play a number of important roles (see Fig. 1) in orienting innovation systems
and capacity-building among innovation system actors. Fig. 2 illustrates the inter-relatedness of these FTA roles with the innovation system functions outlined earlier in the paper (see Table 1). The inter-relations are summarised in the sub-sections that follow. 5. 1 Informing decision-making
The informing role of FTA most closely relates to the innovation system functions of facilitating experimentatiio and learning, knowledge development,
and directing search and selection. For example, FTA PROCESSES can inform policy-making by providing spaces for experimentation where a quest for new solutions
This role most closely corresponds to the innovation functions of knowledge diffusion, mobilisaatio of resources, and creating spaces for market formatiion FTA PROCESSES lead not only to new combinations of Table 1. Innovation system functions
and their reorientation towards grand challenges Reorientation towards grand challenges Facilitate experimentation and learning Solutions to grand challenges will require, in many instances, radical socio-technical innovations.
Experimentation and learning needs to be strengthened, with greater amounts of probing and experimenttatio in areas that are potentially relevant to grand challenges.
research and innovation programmes Knowledge development Transformative shifts implied by solutions to grand challenges will need new knowledge as well as a new type of knowledge production.
this is especially important given the boundary-spanning nature of grand challenges Orienting European innovation systems. 145 knowledge
This capacity-building role sees FTA PROCESSES potentially contributing to all innovation system functions by directly affecting the mind-sets and attitudes of individuals and the routines and capabilities of organisations.
or organisational strategies Provide anticipatory strategic intelligence to innovation system actors, including overall citizens, thus leading to policy processes amenable to current
Addressing grand challenges is at the core of EU policies for research and innovation as illustrated by the latest EU strategic policy documents.
At the same time, the Innovation Union3 Flagship Initiative recognises that the same challenges also provide powerful opportunities to develop innovative products
it advocates a strategic and integrated approach to research and innovation in dealing with grand challennge while also strengthening European competitiveness.
as well as in contributing to the coordination of national and local research and innovation policies towards joint goals (IDEA Consult 2010).
The concept of European Innovation Partnerships (EIPS) introduced by the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative is the overarching framework embracing relevant joint programming activities ranging from Art. 185 initiatives to ERA NETS, or JPIS.
EIPS focus on innovations that address major societal challenges and pursue a broad concept of innovation involving all actors and regions in the innovation cycle,
i e. large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, the public sector, the social economy and citizens themselves (CEC 2010).
mobilise resources FTA informing role FTA structuring role FTA capacity building role Innovation system functions FTA roles Figure 2. Contributions of FTA roles
to innovation system functions. Orienting European innovation systems. 147 The Knowledge and Innovation communities (KICS) initiative introduced by the European Institute of Innovattio
and Technology, is another form of research public private partnership (PPP), again placing considerabbl importance on the engagement of the business sector.
KICS cover the entire innovation chain, and bring together partners from research, business and academia to work together on major societal challenges.
which is a longstanding feature of EU research and innovation policies. In particulla the Joint Technology initiatives (JTIS), 5 having evolved from European Technology platforms,
The identification of grand challenges and the corresponding priorities for research and innovation through the use of forward-looking activities is mentioned explicitly in the Council's conclusions (December 2009) 7 on guidance on future priorities for European research.
and the Table 2. FTA roles in innovation functions and their integration in EU instruments Innovation system function FTA roles Integration of FTA in EU instruments Facilitate experimenttatio
thereby contributing to the creation of variety in innovation systems Informing role of FTA facilitates building of a common vision for a specific theme or challenge,
and mutual positioning of other innovation system actors vis-a vis the future. In addition to these, FTA PROCESSES can encourage multi-disciplinarity in research needed
and join forces for designing common desirable futures Orienting European innovation systems. 149 contributions these would make to various innovation system functions. 7. Conclusions This paper has outlined the contours of an emerging mission-led approach to innovation policy that is more global
It has argued that a reorientation of innovation systems towards grand challenges could offer opportunities for a more responsible and transformative innovation practice to develop.
A different type of innovation policy is required essentially that better acknowledges the co-evolutionary, multidimensional, complex and multi-actor nature of the processes involved in enabling transformative change.
Taking a systems of innovation approach, the paper also suggests that FTA can support the spanning of traditional boundaries that might
In this sense, it can perform a more structuring role for innovation systems in need of reorientation.
in effectively orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges remains under-exploited. One rectifying step would be to better consider the structural and functional aspects of innovattio systems with a view to identifying bottlenecks and appropriate points for effective policy intervention.
At the same time, the capacity-building role of FTA should be enabled to benefit all innovation system functiion as this would lead to the accumulation of expertise
or launched new initiativves such as the Lund Declaration11 that shall be the basis for designing the EU's future policies for research and innovation.
and contribute to a better appreciation of the roles FTA can play in reorientiin innovation systems towards grand challenges.
and parcel of the dynamics of innovation systems. As Hekkert et al. 2007) point out, the notion of‘function'is provided useful its heuristic value is stressed. 2. COM (2010) 2020, Brussels, 3 march 2010.3. COM (2010) 546 final, Brussels, 6 october 2010.4.
Council of the European union, Guidance on future priorities for European research and research-based innovation in post-2010 Lisbon strategy, Council conclussions Brussels, 8 december 2009.8.
but also on the design of its first Strategic Innovation Agenda. 10. See<http://www. era. gv. at/space/11442/directory/19999/doc/21643. html>accessed Dec 2011.11.
Amanatidou, E. 2011)‘ Strategy workshop on Innovation Union: Joint programming and its instruments',Final Report.
Orienting European innovation systems. 151 Arnold, E. 2004)‘ Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations',Research Evaluation, 13:3 17.
Matt, M. and Llerena, P. eds) Innovation policy in a Knowledge Based Economy: Theories and Practises, pp. 17 40.
Bergek, A.,Jacobsson, S.,Carlsson, B.,Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. 2008)‘ Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems:
Bright, D. S.,Fry, R. E. and Cooperrider, D. L. 2006)‘ Transformative innovations for the mutual benefit of business society,
2010)‘ Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social, Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',SEC (2010) 1161
Depledge, M.,Bartonova, A. and Cherp, A. 2010)‘ Responsible and transformative innovation for sustainable societies.
Edquist, C. 2008)‘ Design of innovation policy through diagnossti analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures)',CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper Series 2008/06.
Fagerberg, J.,Mowery, D c. and Nelson, R. R. 2004) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford:
Freeman, C. and Soete, L. 1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd edn. London: Pinter.
Nauwelaers, C. and Wintjes, R. eds) Innovation policy in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gertler, M. S. and Wolfe, D. A. 2004)‘ Local social knowledge management:
Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. 2010) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier.
Hekkert, M. P.,Suurs, R. A a.,Negro, S. O.,Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. E. H. M. 2007)‘ Functions of innovation systems:
Jacobsson, S. and Bergek, A. 2006)‘ A framework for guiding policy-makers intervening in emerging innovation systems in‘catching-up'countries',European Journal of Development Research, 18: 687 707.
Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn. Paris: OECD. Rogers, E. M. 1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn.
New york: Free Press. Rittel, H. and Weber, M. 1973)‘ Dilemmas in a general theory of planning',Policy Sciences, 4: 155 69.
Knowledge-intensive industries and distributed knowledge bases',Paper prepared as part of the project‘Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy'commissioned by the European commission.
I.,Smith, A. and Van Zwanenberg, P. 2009)‘ Transformative innovation',A research report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs. Brighton:
) Democratising Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Woolthius, R. K.,Lankhuizen, M. and Gilsing, V. 2005)‘ A system failure framework for innovation policy design',Technovation, 25: 609 19.152.
C. Cagnin et al
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011