Amina Beyer-Kutzner b, Walter Ganz c, Philine Warnke d a Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research (ISI), Breslauer Str. 48,76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b German Federal Ministry for Research and Education, BMBF, Germany c Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering, Germany d Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany
others are just more indirectly filtered into the innovation system of the specific sectors in the country.
was conducted by a consortium comprising the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research (Fraunhofer ISI) and the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (Fraunhofer IAO).
. In order to address objectives 1 and 2, in the foresight approach, well-known search strategies as well as other methods from innovation research,
or are transferred already to innovations in 10 years'time were excluded from the lists of topics to be considered.
but also the innovation system and the actors working in the fields. A bibliometric analysis provided further input in this process.
An online survey among experts from the German innovation landscape was performed in September 2008 in order to get broader assessment on the topics,
Parallel to this, the corresponding innovation systems were being analysed in order to identify candidates for potential strategic partnerships which are proposed in 2009 at the end of the whole process (Objectives 3 and 4). In the last phase of the process,
Nevertheless, this conference marked the beginning of the integration of the topics that were identified into the German innovation system and into BMBF.
technological innovations that are linked directly to human beings (inside and outside of the body) need new technologies on the one hand,
and efficiently absorbed by an existing innovation system? Table 1 One example for results. Ranking problem:
In five parallel working groups, different aspects of research and innovation policy around novel topics will be discussed: Organisation of scientific communities Establishment of research alliances Research programmes and initiatives Innovation policy instruments Ideation A round-table discussion enhanced this discussion
and asked if strategic partnerships will be a means to implement new or crosscutting topics. The challenge for the BMBF Foresight process from 2009 onwards was the design of concrete strategies to address some of the topics identified.
At the same time, it is exactly the capability to combine diverse elements in new ways to respond to change which characterises the quality of innovation systems within a learning economy.
or if it is more about identifying actors, innovation policy measures or other issues. When this paper is written,
They have to be differentiated from a more specific definition of research alliances and innovation alliances like those
Therefore, every foresight exercise has an impact on the system the foresight is performed in, in this case the BMBF and the policy as well as the innovation system.
They can be implemented by others in the innovation system or be part of strategic partnerships (objective no. 3)
The information and topics gained in these processes may also be interesting for other actors in the innovation system.
Its preparation learned from innovation and from foresight studies 22 27 and took into account knowledge from 15 years of foresight in Germany and internationally 4, 5, 6, 17,21, 28 31.
in order to make use of the strategic intelligence of the innovation system 24,27, 32 but this time very cautiously and step by step.
Participatory Priority Setting for Research and Innovation policy, IRB Publishers, Stuttgart, 2004.14 K. Cuhls, L. Georghiou, Evaluating a Participative Foresight process:‘
An Attitudinal Perspective, Technological forecasting and Social Change, vol. 25,1984, pp. 281 292.16 K. Cuhls, K. Blind, H. Grupp, Innovations for our future.
new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.17 Bundesministerium für Forschung und
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 22 P. Warnke, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument:
Future-oriented technology analysis, Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 149 162.24 S. Kuhlmann, R. Smits, The rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation policy, Int. Journal of Foresight
and Innovation policy, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 4 32,2/3. 25 C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré, Future-oriented technology analysis
, Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.26 A g. Pereira, R. von Schomberg, S. Funtowicz, Foresight Knowledge Assessment, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, vol
L. Georghiou (Ed.),The Handbook of Technology foresight, Concepts and Practice, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, 2008, pp. 131 152.29 K. Cuhls, K. Blind, Knut
, H. Grupp, Innovations for our future. Delphi'98: new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.30 Science and Technology foresight Center, Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), in: National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Comprehensive analysis of Science and Technology Benchmarking and Foresight report no. 99, Tôkyô:
The Handbook of Technology foresight, Concepts and Practice, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, 2008.32 S. Kuhlmann, et al.
Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Karlsruhe, 1999.
Kerstin Cuhls is coordinator of the business area Foresight and Futures research in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
Philine Warnke is scientific project manager in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
which is based in the Government office for Science based in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Innovation in Environmental policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability, Edgar Elgar Publishing, London, 2008, pp. 114 133.42 Scottish government, National Planning Framework 2 SEA Annex to the Environmental Report:
A case for critical systems thinking in nanotechnology Denis Loveridge, Ozcan Saritas Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9pl Manchester, UK a r
'Similarly, because the present ideas are concerned with the practical achievement, with all its shortcomings, of Inclusive foresight, innovation research,
In addition, innovation research tends to deal in procedures and not the actions of individuals and their subjective opinions with appropriate probability measures.
For these reasons the findings of innovation research do not feature in the practical proposals soon to be described.
both are at the Manchester Institute of Innovation research at the Manchester Business school, the University of Manchester. 1221 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221
and around the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation of nanotechnologies as an opportunity to develop support tools for exploring potential co-evolutions of nanotechnology and governance arrangements.
Co-evolutionary scenarios Selection environment Nanotechnology Responsible development Anticipatory coordination 1. Introduction The path to innovation is journey-like, certainly so for radical innovation.
Trodden more often, the activities along the path will become more predictable (as with incremental innovation.
Retrospective studies of emerging technology applications/products (from disciplines of Management and Sociology of Innovation) reveal that the journeys twist
this complexity increases as we shift from retro-to prospective analysis of potential paths to innovation
(or created) by nanotechnology innovations and how the regulatory, economic and societal landscapes will co-evolve.
not only face the general challenge of prospecting possible pathways for innovation they also are challenged to prospect the changing environments
whether an innovation will move from a hopeful proof-of-principle to a product well embedded in our society.
There is a call for anticipatory governance 1 often phrased as the need for responsible development of nanotechnology or responsible innovation in nanotechnology,
But the potential breakthrough nature of nanotechnologies as enablers of radically new applications may mean a complex reconfiguration of the environments that a nanotechnology innovation may traverse during its‘lifetime'from concept to well embedded technology in our society.
and around Responsible Research and Innovation of Nanotechnology. 2 That is why it became the subject of a research project
and context-rich scenarios encompasses a trade-off between recognizing the complexity of actual dynamics of innovation
and the need to reduce complexity, without falling back on the linear model of innovation. Such scenarios should highlight both the multilevel/multi-actor dynamics
and the unfolding innovation journeys of technology development have not been developed to date. Such scenarios require insight into co-evolutionary dynamics,
and pace of the co-evolution. 1 The phrase‘responsible innovation'refers to innovation activities in which social aspects,
and in this way responsible innovation is the responsibility of innovation actors, in interaction with various societal actors. 2 This term was created by the author for the purposes of the project,
responsible innovation and including the notion that this umbrella term covers research, product development and embedment.
Responsible (research &) innovation can be read in two ways: one with an emphasis on innovation, which requires some responsibility to be successful/acceptable,
or another with an emphasis on responsible up to and including halting developments along particular R&d
& Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 There is increasing recognition that innovation emergence is a nonlinear process,
not only in the management and sociology of technology and innovation communities, but also by international and global actors. 4 To capture this non-linearity of innovation processes,
the metaphor of the innovation journey has been used; it refers to the complex twists and turns in the emergence of a new product 5. Innovation is characterized nonlinear,
and by learning processes of actors about artefacts and actants. Elements include the convergence and coupling of emerging technical and organisational elements,
and parcel of the actor-network that carries the innovation as well as the broader landscape which overtime shifts.
If we accept that paths to innovation is journey-like for the scenarios we must also recall there may be many potential pathways to innovation 6 and each of the journeys down the pathways could involve forks, setbacks, convergence etc.
the stuff of innovation journeys. However, for breakthrough technologies, the factors that shape the pathways may be evolving too!
An example could be the regulatory landscape which would enable certain technology options and constrain others.
Co-evolutionary scenarios were developed as a theory-informed approach to capture the complexities of innovation journeys
albeit small, element in the co-evolution of innovation and the surrounding selection landscape. This is a key aspect of modern FTA-connecting complexities of ongoing innovations (and the conditions
which frame the creation and selection of options) with the real issue of developing strategic agendas and plans that will lead to action.
Some of the implications (including opportunities) of infusing complexity into FTA practices will be discussed. 2. Prospecting innovation:
theory and concepts Recent thinking about innovation adds up to a general idea that technology emergence is a process of innovation and selection shot through with anticipations (c. f. quasi-evolutionary
Evolutionary theories of technical changes emphasise that for innovation one should think of variation and selection (and retention of those selections.
and assessment tools for the analysis and improvement of the societal embedding of innovations. Socrobust emphasised the difference between hot unarticulated, open-ended (fluid/hot) situations and more structured and well articulated, stable (cold) situations 22.
In this section I use three building blocks to construct a framework for prospecting innovation: evolutionary models of technical change;
the innovation chain+,and endogenous futures. This framework which can help in structuring large amounts of heterogeneous data,
what they have to offer. 2. 1. Lacunae in evolutionary models of technical change How do innovations come to be selected from a number of possible options;
institutional and social factors in shaping a technology. 4 Braun for example describes the early notions of innovation as being characterised by a‘linear'view of innovation as an automatic spill over process between basic knowledge
and technological application whilst recent notions regard innovation as being nonlinear and recursive interactions between a variety of actors participating in the quest for innovation. 8. 5 These environments,
& Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 Sociologically inclined innovation scholars have focused on analysing and prospecting innovation/selection activities, studying open-ended situations of emergence,
and other topics. Against this background I propose that there is a clear gap in the literature so far regarding the shifting natures of selection environments
and shift with respect to unfolding innovation journeys. There is a gap in capturing the shifting natures of the selection environments and mechanisms of action 14
with little or no focus on the actual shaping dynamics on the innovation journey in the literature.
which would combine path dynamics 26 28 with the sociology of expectations 29 to prospect micro-level innovation chains.
In this project on RRIWE add a further conceptualization using the idea of arenas of innovation and selection
we have called sometimes it innovation chain plus (IC), +but it is actually a mosaic of arenas through
which innovations traverse (including anticipation on further selections). The advantage of this conceptualization is that it allows selection environments
and framing conditions to be an explicit part of the mapping. 2. 2. Innovation chain+:+a mosaic of arenas for innovation and selection At the time of the Constructive TA project, a method of combining ideas of innovation journeys amidst evolving landscapes (coevollutio of innovation/selection processes
and framing conditions) was not available but was crucial in order to get close to the real issues being explored through the CTA.
the Innovation chain+model was developed. 6 Whilst every innovation has its journey, it is dependent on the techno-institutional landscape.
This landscape will have different characteristics at different stages of technology/product emergence and is shaped by broader framing conditions and by anticipatory coordination on the part of technology developers and promoters,
I propose the Innovation chain+framework as a way of presenting this situation. It allows the positioning of the complexities inherent to the reality of innovations, paths and landscapes,
whilst allowing the link to the linear model (reducing complexity to achieve outcomes). It is complementary to the widely used value chain approach,
The Innovation chain+is designed for new product creation and thus is useful for locating and framing shifts within certain areas of the chain,
Detailing in brief, in this visualization an innovation traverses a complex mosaic of arenas of innovation and selection which are affected by broader aspects.
The arenas for innovation and selection are shown here as bubbles where each arena represents a particular socio-technical configuration carrying
Thus the innovation journey (represented in Fig. 1 as a branching line) is made up of a path to innovation (a pathway represented by the bubbles in the centre of Fig. 1) where the emerging technology itself
and is a combination of technology studies, innovation and management studies, and path dynamics which adds up to a mosaic of arenas,
Unlike the linear model, the emergence of an innovation is predetermined not, it is more reactive and responsive
Robinson and Propp 6 used the innovation chain concept in the context of path dynamics. 7 Here I make a distinction.
Technical innovation is more than a box or device made up of material components and is part of a socio-technical network of actors, artifacts and infrastructures
which evolve with the innovation. This reads like actor-network theory (Callon et al on TEN) and so innovation itself is an outcome of alignment and configuration of actors, artifacts and infrastructures.
In line with Innovation chain+nomenclature one could call this Innovation+.+8 Still the focus of technology developers in their FTA ACTIVITIES, focus on paths (such as roadmapping) rather than journeys.
Robinson and Propp expand this path perspective to a multi-path one. In this paper, we shift discussions to the journeys themselves
and the arenas that will shape and be shaped by the journeys. 1225 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting
& Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 Fig. 1. Innovation chain+as a mosaic of co-evolving arenas of innovation and selection with innovation journeys showing coupling, shifting,
and coevoluution of technologies and the IC+we need some indications of how paths-to-innovation may emerge
Coupling endogenous futures with characteristics of innovation journeys (from historical case studies) within the framework of the IC+framework helps us structure the complexities
and current situation and developed three co-evolutionary scenarios showing plausible playings out of technology innovations
and shape innovation and selection processes? 1228 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 Fig. 3. Evolution of governance, 2000 2008.1229 D. K
The proposed codes of conduct were the tip of an iceberg of a larger movement towards responsible innovation,
those of technology developers and promoters they term insiders (that focus on innovation through enactment cycles) and outsiders (who focus on comparing
If van de ven's comment is true Management can't control innovation success only its odds 5 then this implies a shift from deterministic approaches to foresight
and anticipation of possible problems in the innovation journey increase these chances of success. 12 To this end,
responsible (research &) innovation can be read in two ways. One with an emphasis on innovation, which requires some responsibility to be successful/acceptable,
or another with an emphasis on responsible up to and including halting developments along particular R&d lines.
I have placed innovation journeys at the micro-level, technology developer coordination attempts at the meso-level and selector coordination and control at the macro-level.
They do their job by emphasising tensions occurring in the Innovation chain+frame and place into context possible playings out,
The scenario in Box 3 looks at a specific cluster of innovations in nanoparticle based drug delivery.
By mid 2008 the patchwork of codes of conduct, best practices and measures of responsible innovation remains misaligned,
The patchwork of codes of conduct, best practices and measures of responsible innovation remain misaligned,
years Aspects of translation through Innovation chain: Innovation journeys shift from gestation period to start-up phase. This section also illustrates techno start-up strategies..
Similar developments can be seen for crime scene investigation and civil security technologies, where advanced diagnostics,
small companies begin to commercialise this technology Broader context of comparable innovation journeys: these other fields are added to compare to the medical device innovation journeys later in the scenario..
A case of focused national initiatives can be seen. One example, Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy) Anticipatory coordination and lock in:
The lack of nano specific regulation allowed innovations to proliferate but transition into the clinic became fraught with many other challenges related to user needs and user practices.
and that twists and turns are to be expected as well (characteristic of innovation journeys). While in the annotated scenario, the Finnish worker case,
of maintaining a patchwork of soft law options to facilitate nanotechnology innovation, positions taken on precaution,
IC+emphasizes the overlapping mosaic of arenas of innovation and selection shape and are shaped by the innovations that pass through them
and so helps in identifying actors and their strategies. This aids the scenario creator, in my case I could place amidst the three scenarios some major stances and strategies of various actors,
These scenarios embrace complexity by referring to the emerging natures of both the innovation chains and their environment.
, The Innovation journey, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1999.6 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp, Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in Emerging s&t, Technol.
Policy 28 (1999) 777 792.17 S. Bakker, H. van Lente, M. Meeus, Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies, Innovation studies Utrecht (ISU) Working
Weber et al. discusses the trade-offs between policy impacts of FTA with the experience gained from the innovation policy foresight
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.
relations to emerging societal and industrial needs, with illustrations of future possibilities by way of concrete manifestations (such as innovations).
3) FTA in research and innovation;(4) FTA and equality: new approaches to governance; and (5) FTA in security and sustainability.
technology and innovation studies; socio-technical; public research organisatioons foresight; science and technology and innovation policy studies 1. Introduction The setting of priorities in science
and innovation policy is one of the most important rationales for implementing national foresight activities. Important users of this type of foresight activity are often national research and innovation councils,
national research programmes and similar entities involved directly in prioritising public expenditure on research and development (R&d). Research and innovation councils and programmes play a significant role in the development of science
and are a central interface between politics and research. Compared with basic funding to universities, the funding for research and innovation councils and targeted research programmes is a more dynamic instrument, suitable for interaction with national science and innovation policy.
In some countries (for example, Norway) research councils have played a key role in initiating and sponsoring foresight activities as a strategic input to funding activities.
In other countries foresight exercises have been carried out on the national level by entities (private or public) other than research councils and related organisations.*
and objectives for foresight The rationale for carrying out public foresight exercises is often related to the political goal of increasing economical competitiveness by means such as technological or societal innovation.
As neither research councils nor national research programmes by themselves create technological innovation, the concepts of national innovation systems (NIS) and technology innovation systeem (TIS) are important in understanding how new technologies emerge
and how various forces influence this process. An innovation system can be defined as‘the elements and relationships,
which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowleddge (Lundvall 1992).
Furthermore, policies on innovation have been suggested by Johnson and Jacobsson to underpin the system by improving its ability to serve five primary functions:(
With roots in evolutionary econommic and their understanding of national innovation systems, Georghiou and Keenan compiled a list of‘common stated goals for foresight,
'which are widely concordant with Johnson and Jacobsson's suggested functions of innovation systems. These goals are:(
so that priorities for investment in science and innovation activities can be set;(2) reorienting the science and innovation system;
this goal is related to priority-setting, but goes further;(3) demonstrating the vitality of the science and innovation system;(
4) bringing new actors into the strategic debate; and (5) building new networks and linkages across fields, sectoor and markets,
and innovation to be linear, whereby innovation is thought to be initiated in pure science and to trickle down through applied research
and industrial development, ending up in new products introduced on to the market. As a consequence of this, there is often focus on the opinions of so-called‘elite'scientists and industrialists,
Other understandings of innovation would imply that customers or other societal actors also were included in Delphi surveys.
Today, total public expenditure for energy-related research and innovation has increased to approximately the same level as before,
The council was located in the Danish research Agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation,
A third funding source for energy research, a New energy and Environment Research programme, was established also in the period through the Strategic research Council, under the auspices of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
For the Danish energy research programme the rationale was to set priorities for Danish energy research and innovation in the light of Danish energy policy.
Technollog and Innovation Partly the Confederation of Danish Industries Advisory Council for Energy Research Energy production companies Energy-technology companies Scientists Interest groupings/NGOS Target groups
innovation-systemorieente The strategy of gaps and weak points: underpinning priorities related to scientific weaknesses compared to the international state-of-the-art The strategy of serving industry:
If a national science system is perceived as an important element of the overall national innovation system then priority-setting processes of research councils
especially its legitimacy affiliated with innovation and business opportunities and of broader societal needs and improved the discussion on science possibilities to contribute to these.
Notes on contributors Per Dannemandandersen is head of the Innovation systems and Foresight section at thetechnical University of Denmark's Department for Management Engineering.
His main areas of research are technology foresight, strategy in science and innovation, technological innovation, the interaction between industry and science,
Mads Borup is a senior scientist at the Innovation systems and Foresight section at the Technical University of Denmark's Department for Management Engineering.
His areas of work are systems of innovation and governance of research and innovation in the fields of eco-innovation and energy innovation.
Prepared by Optima Ltd, VDI/VDE-Innovation and Technik Gmbh, EC Contract Ref. PP-CT-M-2004-0004.
demand, users and innovation, eds. R. Coombs, K. Green, V. Walsh, and A. Richards. Cheltenham:
National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter. March, J. G. 1988. Decisions and organizations.
Progress, innovation and cohesion. Strategy for Denmark in the global economy Summary. Copenhagen: The Prime minister's Office. http://www. globalisering. dk/page. dsp?
, B. P. 1777, L-1017, Luxembourg b Manchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK Published online:
bmanchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK This paper sets out to review the conduct and immediate impacts of a two-year national technollog foresight exercise
In an opening section, the general contours of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in Luxembourg are traced, with a view to contextualising the FNR Foresight experience.
Luxembourg lacked a public science, technology and innovation infrastructure. R&d carried out in Luxembourg was largely the preserve of the private sector particularly the steel industry and even today,
Early public investments in R&d and innovation were influenced by private sector activities and largely sought to support them.
These included the founding of Luxinnovation in 1984, an agency for supporting innovation; and the establishment of several public research centres in 1987, with the primary aim of supporting technological innovation in firms.
However, with increased recognition of the role of research and innovation in contributing towards the future development of the country,
the Luxembourg government decided in 1999 to increase the level of publicly funded research. Accordingly, the government went on to develop a focused STI policy,
The OECD Review of Innovation policy was conducted in 2006 and commissioned by the MCHER. The Review report (see OECD 2007) suggested a number of needed reforms in the system of public sector research governance
etc. and structuura priorities concerned with issues such as research infrastructures, higher education teaching programmes, innovation promotion initiatives, venture capital markets,
National priorities National priorities (Research areas)( Research domains) Innovation in services Business service design and innovation Fostering the economic and legal environment for Innovation performance and development of the financial systems
Instead, a better STI policy strategy is to foster an innovation system that is sufficiently flexible to support such areas at their time of emergence. 5. 3. Deliberative processes Foresight exercises are characterised by deliberation between various stakeholders, often in workshhop and working groups.
Many senior scientific personnel from the private sector used the exercise to underline the need for high quality public research as a prerequisite for innovation and mutually rewarding cooperation between both sectors. 7. Conclusions For those familiar with running foresight exercises
Michael Keenan is Senior Research fellow at the Manchester Institute of Innovation research and acted as adviser to the FNR Foresight study.
Reviews of innovation policy: Luxembourg. Paris: OECD. Thorsteinsdottir, H. 2000. Public sector research in small countries: does size matter?
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011