Synopsis:
Innovation:
ART1.pdf
and thereby encouraging widespread innovation in organisational responses to the challenges of the future. 6. Importing ideas As might be expected of a session dealing with new ideas on FTA there was a wide diversity of suggestions and issues presented.
ART10.pdf
Innovation is seen as increasingly complex, interdependent and uncertain and therefore in need of broad and multidiscipplinar exploration and participation.
Decision-making in relation to innovation and new technology be it from a company's or from a public policy perspective, is confronted with the need to navigate increasingly complex decision landscapes.
and communication technologies has given rise to an internationalisation of research and innovation. This obviously makes the anticipation of future developments and their consequences more difficult than ever before.
complex and inherently uncertain character of innovation. This requires first of all that these approaches are based on
and reflect an appropriate understanding of the changing characteristics of innovation and decision-making. Secondly, they should contribute to the mobilisation and coordination of the decision-making by different actors.
The foresight tradition that has become quite prominent particularly in public policy takes into account the interactive character of innovation
This is done in the context of the third constituent, viz. a perspective on innovation as complex and largely unpredictable.
we want to develop foresight practices that properly reflect state-of-the-art innovation theory and are also able in turn to contribute to enhancing theoretic understanding of innovation.
This said we do acknowledge that some innovation theorists are likely to skip much of Section 3
while some foresight practitioners are likely to do the same for Section 2. 2. The three constituents of Adaptive foresight Adaptive foresight as discussed in this paper has three main roots or constituents.
This dilemma mirrors the departure from a simple linear innovation model which we could observe during the past decades.
From a modern perspective on innovation it is on the contrary essential to accept that decision-makers are confronted with uncertainty
achievements and deficits In the light of insights from research on innovation and technological change, much foresight thinking and practice have struck us as somewhat over-simplistic and in particular over-optimistic in its hopes, e g. with respect to the ability to mobilise innovation system stakeholders to act
and bring it closer to a contemporary understanding of processes of innovation and technological change. Over the last ten to fifteen years
what we sometimes call conventional foresight has very much to do with the understanding of innovation as complex and interactive processes.
The even more traditional technology foresight standpoint developed from a more linear understanding of innovation does handle many of the challenges we discuss excellently (using best expert knowledge,
and services like fire protection, rather than in the context of innovation and technology development.)8 See in particular the online guide of the EU Forlearn project (http://forlearn. jrc. es/guide/0 home/index. htm),
Innovation, however, is not particularly like a fire in this regard. Rather innovation processes tend to be drawn-out affairs with big opportunities to learn
Turning more specifically to innovation and technology it must first be observed that many of the neat conceptual distinctions useful for,
e g. no innovation-oriented research programme can be sustained successfully for a longer period without skilful management.
For instance, they can refer to the promotion of individual technologies (e g. an R&d programme) as well as to the structural settings of the innovation systems (e g. liberalisation of energy supply.
and in technology and innovation policy they are criticised sometimes on the ground that they fail to provide the commitment necessary for, e g.,
Adaptive options in technology and innovation policy should be seen not only as laboratory RTD, but can also include pilots
experiences were made with Strategic Niche Management19 and Transition Management20 as approaches to devise forward-looking policy strategies for long-term transformations of infrastructure and sectoral innovation systems towards sustainability.
These projects focused on strategy and programme development in research, technology and innovation policy, and stressed the interdependenciie with other policy areas and other innovation actors.
technology and innovation policy at national and regional level. 21 These projects stress in particular the need to understand Adaptive foresight as a continuous monitoring,
and the addressee, respectively, Austrian federal innovation policy or the Swedish national innovation system. This situation indicates that the political setup around an AF project can be rather sensitive
Secondly, the analytical boundaries of the innovation system that determines the evolution of the focal issue need to be clarified.
and aspects that need to be addressed in the course of an innovation system analysis24: Actors; Interactions and decision-making processes;
The process dynamics, by which these different elements of innovation systems are coupled. 3. 2. 3. Phase 2:
After all, it is external developments that drive the need for adaptation. 24 The understanding of innovation systems analysis as used here is based on the conventional actor-oriented approach as pioneered by Freeman 44 and Lundvall 45 in the late 1980s and early 1990s
More normatively oriented, functional innovation systems approaches take a different stance on innovation system analysis 46.25 The methodology outlined in this section is largely based on the so called Shell/GBN tradition 47.
in a way useful also for non-experts in innovation research, convey the notion that the complex innovation system logic discussed above may develop over time in alternative, qualitatively different, ways.
the only thing we need to get innovation going is lower taxes; then multiple scenarios can help create useful variety.
but at best be repeated every few years, for instance in line with an update of the overall technology and innovation policy strategy.
These projects cover a range of different application areas like production systems, transport and mobility systems, regional innovation systems, information and communication technologies and energy technologies.
when it comes to capturing the intricacies of innovation. Still, computer assistance for managing and navigating the complex information bases that adaptive planning necessitates should be a priority.
Pinter, London, 1980.2 K. M. Weber, The Neo-Schumpeterian element in the sociological analysis of innovation, in:
Malmer, B. Mölleryd, Foresight in Nordic innovation systems. Report for Nordic Innovation Centre, Oslo, 2007.11 G. Best, G. Parston, J. Rosenhead, Robustness in practice:
the regional planning of health services, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 37 (1986) 463 478.12 H. Cameron, L. Georghiou, M. Keenan,
Towards Environmental Innovation systems, Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 33554 27 B. Wittrock, S. Lindström, De stora programmens tid:
Shaping Sustainable Transformations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2006.29 K. M. Weber, K. Kubeczko, H. Rohracher, System innovations in innovation systems.
Proceedings of the SCORE Workshop, Copenhagen, 20 21 april 2006, TNO, Delft, 2006.30 H. Van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, Opportunities and limitations of European innovation policy
Building the Nordic Research and Innovation Area in Hydrogen, Summary Report of Nordic H2 Energy Foresight project, Risoe National Laboratory, Risoe, 2005.481 E. A. Eriksson, K
Towards Environmental Innovation systems, Springer, Berlin, 2005.39 K. M. Weber, K. Kubeczko, K.-H. Leitner, K. Whitelegg,
Theory, Evidence and Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004.41 W. Polt, K. M. Weber, Forschung, Technologie und Innovation für Wohlstand in gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung.
Strategische Leitlinien Technology and innovation for wealth creation and societal responsibility. Strategic guidelines, Report to the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology BMVIT, Vienna, 2007.42 City of Vienna, Wiener Strategie für Forschung, Technologie und
Innovation Vienna Strategy for Research, Technology and Innovation, Vienna, 2007.43 K. M. Weber, A. Geyer, D. Schartinger, P. Wagner, Zukunft der Mobilität in Österreich.
Konsequenzen für die Technologiepolitik, Research report, Austrian Research centres, Seibersdorf, 2002.44 C. Freeman Technology policy and Economic Performance:
Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London, 1987.45 B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation, Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.46 A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B
. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, A. Rickne, Analyzing the dynamics and functionality of sectoral innovation systems a manual,
Nordic and European future-oriented projects in defence, security, energy and transportation, typically with innovation and major investment decisions as important aspects.
and advising government on matters of research, technology and innovation policy. Apart from foresight methodologies, his main research interests are in the governance of research and innovation systems, in the transformation of large socio-technical systems towards sustainability
and in the emergence and performance of R&d collaboration networks. 482 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482
ART11.pdf
Innovation policy; Networking; Robust Portfolio Modeling Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 Corresponding author.
Such expectations are not necessarily easy to fulfill due to the complexities of vertical and horizontal coordination in national innovation systems 3. Indeed
foresight activities can be conducted within RTD programs and other instruments of innovation policy 7. In this paper, we examine issues in the organization of foresight activities within European coordination tools such as Integrated Projects, Networks of Excellence, ERA NETS, European Technology platforms and Technology initiatives
which seek to foster European collaboration in innovation policy. Specifically we report the design and implementation of an embedded foresight process that was organized in the ERA NET program on wood material sciences 8. Building on the experiences from this process,
and the management of multiple interfaces present in European-wide innovation policy coordination. 2. Foresight within ERA NETS The ERA NET scheme3 seeks to strengthen the coordination
for the purpose of supporting mutual learning, opening-up of national innovation systems and the development of new collaborative forms of European RTD funding.
Because the participating funding organizations have evolved through path-dependent processes that reflect the characteristics of their respective national innovation systems,
ERA NETS and other European coordination tools are indicative of the transformation of the EU innovation policy from financially oriented measures to the facilitation and monitoring of stakeholder processes
this transformation represents a shift from optimization-oriented innovation policies for the mitigation of market failures towards coordination-oriented policies (3,
Scalability is needed to process contributions from stakeholders who are concerned with different facets of innovation systems at the local, sectoral, national and international level.
which is a variant of the Robust Portfolio Modeling (RPM) methodology for the analysis of innovation ideas and innovative concepts 9, 10,18, 19.
we have discussed the use of decision support methodologies in the development of a shared research agenda inwoodwisdom-Net, an ERA NET on wood material research that is an example of the coordination tools for EU innovation policies.
insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (5)( 2007) 608 626.10 J. Liesiö, P. Mild, A. Salo, Preference programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and project selection, Eur.
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-20137-EN, Seville, 2002.12 H. Prange, Technology and innovation policiers in the European systemofmulti-level
governance, Technikfolgenabschätzung Theorie und Praxis 12 (2)( 2003) 11 20.13 S. Kuhlmann, J. Edler, Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe:
J. Econ. 19 (1)( 1995) 25 46.15 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innov.
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy. Ahti Salo (M. Sc. 1987, D. Tech. 1992) is Professor at the Systems analysis Laboratory with research interests in decision analysis, decision support systems, technology foresight, and risk management.
and evaluation activities, including the joint foresight project Finnsight 2015 of the Academy of Finland and the National Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes),
ART12.pdf
Methodologies and selected applications Knut Blind Regulation and Innovation Competence Center Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management
, Chair of Innovation Economics, VWS 2, Müller-Breslau-Str. D-10623 Berlin, Germany Received 28 september 2006;
Economics and Management, Chair of Innovation Economics, VWS 2, Müller-Breslau-Str. D-10623 Berlin, Germany.
but also emerging technologies, sectors or markets in order to shape pro-actively innovation-promoting regulatory framework conditions, which are crucial for the competitiveness of national or regional innovation systems.
The analysis of regulatory foresight in the narrow sense is based, first, on a broad survey of literature databases and the internet regarding regulatory impact assessments in general,
matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment
Benchmarking Financing R&d Provision of R&d infrastructure Technology transfer and innovation diffusion Legal frameworks (IPRS, standards and regulation) Integrated projects Networks of excellence Methodology:
and innovation activities may challenge the existing regulatory framework and Fig. 2. Science and technology indicators (Source: Blind 21 modifying Grupp 24). 502 K. Blind/Technological forecasting
Whereas the first methodology in Table 1 is focused too narrowly on innovation surveys2, in this section we cover surveys
In a European-wide company survey, companies were asked about the relevance of different types of regulations for the market introduction of new products and services and the various aspects of innovation activities 8. In addition,
the results of the surveys conducted within the framework of the Community Innovation Survey also contain information about regulations and standards as obstacles for innovation and sometimes their role as source for information.
Recently, Swann 18 used this information to assess the impact of British standards for the innovation activities of British companies. 504 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516
especially regarding the promotion of innovation 21. Another large-scale study was conducted in The netherlands by Meeus et al. 30,
Based on a conceptual framework on the role of standards in the innovation process they derive that in a new emerging technology at first terminology standards,
then measurement and testing standards and only later in the innovation cycle quality, safety and compatibility standards are required.
or constrain innovation? In: The Empirical Economics of Standards. Department of Trade and Industry (ed.),London, pp. 76 120,2005.
Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Conference on Standardisation and Innovation in Information technology, 2003, pp. 27 35, Delft. 24 H. Grupp, The Foundations of the Economics of Innovation theory, Measurement and Practice
, Research policy, vol. 31 (7), 2002, pp. 1141 1161.27 K. Koch, M. Rafiquzzaman, S. Rao, The Impact of Regulatory policies on Innovation:
Labour Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation: Cross country Evidence, ECO/WKP (2002) 2, OECD (ed.),Paris. 29 U. Blum, A. Töpfer, G. Eickhoff,
An empirical exploration of the relation between isomorphism and institutional dynamics in standardization, Working Paper Department of Innovation studies, Univ. of Utrecht, Utrecht, 2002.31 T. Vad, European Standardisation why paradoxically small
and holds the chair on Innovation Economics at the Berlin University of Technology since 2006. In addition he is head of the competence center Regulation and Innovation of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research.
Since more than ten years he is conducting studies both in the area of technology foresight, but also in the fields of standards, regulation and intellectual property rights on behalf of the European commission and Ministries in Germany and other countries. 516 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516
ART13.pdf
Tilo Propp b a Department of Science, Technology, Health and Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The netherlands b Department of Innovation and Environmental sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht
We then apply these insights to lab-on-a-chip devices for cell analysis. Dynamics of emerging paths can be used to articulate a future structured in terms of prospective innovation chains and potential paradigms.
if ways are found for closing gaps in the innovation chain. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Innovation chain; Emerging irreversibilities; Strategy support system; Constructive technology assessmentavailable online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 Corresponding author.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.002 1. Lacunae and prospects of assessment and alignment tools for emerging science and technology For innovation to succeed actor alignment in the form of innovation chains from laboratory to products
This is the case with incremental innovation in established technological paradigms. For new and emerging fields of science and technology (S&t) where architectural (radical innovations might occur 1,
conditions of non-linearity and high technology and market uncertainty are typical 2. This often leaves actors with the alternative of‘muddling through
and sustaining an innovation chain. These aims pose tremendous managerial challenges: Noes have to combine‘vertical'or bottom-up management of a portfolio of research projects with‘horizontal'stimulation of science-to-industry innovation chains.
This includes actors outside the network, in the case of nanotechnology, start-ups and SMES which have a lot at stake in entering such risky innovation chains.
Many networks and platforms have dedicated working groups or programmes on foresight, strategic planning and anticipation of societal and ethical hurdles to innovation based on emerging technologies.
Frontiers initiated in 2006 one such programme of Future oriented technology assessment activities (FTA. FTA is used here as an umbrella term for similar forward-looking and/or interactive characteristics of TA approaches.
or TA projects and comparative studies of national and regional innovation systems etc. Activities in the FTA programme focus on designing tools and support systems
T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 of alignment to allow for the creation of innovation chains in the field of micro and nanotechnology.
'by linking up with a number of different fields a number of new innovations are enabled 23.
Literature in the management of innovation, expectations management and sociology-of-technology fields has stressed repeatedly that for assessments during early stages of technological emergence, more‘open-ended'
Specifically, we focus on the stimulation of innovation chains in the field of cell-on-a-chip devices. 9 This field is perceived interesting
because products/applications would need a high degree of coordination to enable integration of a large number of technology innovations into a platform
and maintaining a lab-on-a-chip innovation chain. Research and development of the components of lab-on-a-chip continue,
however innovations in terms of products are few and far between. The long term aim is to package MPM as a strategic support system for start-up (and more mature) companies.
the company can switch towards roadmapping for incremental innovation. Before delving into the context of lab-on-a-chip for cell analysis we explore what the literature can tell us with regards to insights into emerging path dynamics stemming from sociology of S&t, evolutionary economics and organization studies.
we delve into the innovation context by setting the scene for the multi-path mapping exercise.
The DC-3 aircraft in the 1930s was the template for over 20 years for innovation in aircraft design around piston powered planes with metal skin and low wings.
The forward-propelling dynamics of incremental innovation act as a disincentive or even boundary to radical options.
T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 This can be translated into a prospective innovation chain diagram (see Fig. 2) where we see scientific and technological research on the left-hand side of the diagram,
Fig. 2. Broader innovation issues of the transition from research lab to company in the single cell analysis innovation chain. 524 D. K. R. Robinson,
This barrier will be explored later in the paper as the main gap in the innovation chain for the last 15 years,
Application driven innovation chains would find that what we term integrated platform and product application being one-and-the-same.
However, the various possible prospective innovation chains include the notion of generic integrated platform which can be tailored for specific applications
Who will be the key actors in stimulating the innovation chain (noting the reluctance of larger industry to stimulate innovation chains)
and the lack of successful innovation chains meaning lab-on-a-chip remains at the research level,
and 3. evaluate which paths show the most promise of successfully bridging the gaps in the innovation chain for single cell analysis with lab-on-a-chip technology.
and (MPM-2) was used in an interactive way with practitioners as part of a workshop on bridging gaps in the innovation chain from the perspective of practitioners.
and the prospected innovation chains. Cell-on-a-chip development is at a very early stage;
such a multi-path-map would allow plotting of possible innovation chains and enable the network to constructively stimulate innovation chains stemming from its research choices.
Eventually, this allows targeting of research and the negotiation with various relevant innovation chain actors. For cell-on-a-chip
research areas are based around the perceived functions for cell handling and analysis conducted today in a macro-scale laboratory:(
and (6) Analysis. Relevant research for instrumentation and approaches for each of these stages is positioned in the proof of principle section (phase 1) of the innovation chain shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Such areas of research have proliferated over the last 10 years 53,54.
Aside from these relatively simple experimental integrations there is the same gap in the innovation chain which we have diagnosed in Section 3 a gap in innovation of full experimental integration and evolution into and integrated platform.
The visions of lab-on-a-chip devices still remain a promise just out of reach. With many start-ups and SMES focusing on individual components related to the six functions,
(or any) analysis. We come back to this in the next section where we look at specific innovation chains for cell-on-a-chip.
the existence of innovation chains around MCA linking actors in research, experimental integration, integration into platforms,
what we show here as the possible future path/paradigm at the level of an application area (drug discovery) may also be called an innovation system.
or visions, of actors involved in the innovation process. Actors can and do link up with application areas such as those mapped in the top section of the Figure.
concerted and sustained interaction of actors in and around the innovation chains is necessary. The resulting first-round MPM shown in Fig. 3,
and (5) general time axis and stages of innovation chain. The actual MPM would show many more specific paths plotted within the clusters of MCA
and targeting the stimulation of innovation chains. This links up with management challenge 1 for Frontiers:
Innovation chains are specific and there is a lot at stake for those who attempt at creating (or becoming a part of) an innovation chain.
Looking at specifics of innovation chains addresses the management challenge 2, development and maintenance of science-toinduustr links through stimulation of innovation chains.
For the purpose of aiding development to strategic research area setting within Frontiers, this map (and any future evolution) is
The next step of our project was to focus more intently on the second management issue that of innovation chains. 5. MPM-2 innovation chain dynamics Referring to the two management challenges of Frontiers,
The second challenge for Frontiers, that of stimulation of relevant innovation chains, is the subject of this section.
MPM for various possible innovation chains requires insights from practitioners who have experience and something at stake in creating
and maintaining innovation chains. To this end we facilitated a practitioner strategy articulation workshop. The workshop focused on mapping possible innovation chains
and challenges for progressing down the number of possible options. The two aims of the workshop were:
in order to direct research and seek out possible actors who could co-construct an innovation chain based on the Strategic research Areas of Frontiers. 2. Broadening the perspectives of the practitioners participating in the exercise to test the robustness of MPM as part of a strategy support system
for prospecting innovation chains. Building off MPM-1, we conducted interviews based on perspectives and projections of the field of lab-on-a-chip for single cell applications.
These scenarios in themselves contained reliable information on the current situation and selected prospective chronologies of innovations in cell-on-a-chip (rather than possible choices to go for.
(or attempts at) innovation chains in the broader microfluidic/cell analysis fields: In-house R&d of a multinational corporation (MNC) Technology development conducted by SMES
and technical challenges to be placed side by side with the goal of prospecting innovation chains. In this case we left the technical steps in the chain as part of the axis
Thus innovation chain 1 was said to have a key stumbling block no clear market is visible for return on investment and thus.
Identifying the end user is one clear approach to selecting the components and configurations of a technology innovation chain.
because the innovation chain is precarious and may collapse. Flexibility is attractive for developing sustainable innovation chains
but requires a belief in the technology. The participants agreed that this is lacking in MNCS due to previous hype-disappointment cycles such as in biosensors.
However, the large risk of little return-on-investment has stimulated another form of innovation chain initiated by MNCS shown in innovation chain 2. This shifts the risk to SMES which the MNC contracts for risky projects.
for example the sustenance of the innovation chain is wholly dependent on the whim of the MNC. Moreover the concern was raised about the protection of IP:
The group posed innovation chains 3 and 4 and explored these as ways of bypassing any MNC lack of interest in integration by new forms of innovation chain.
In innovation chain 3 a consortium of start-up companies would be the initiator for bridging the gap by attempting a generic integrated platform
which could then be tailored for specific applications. This proposal was based on a view from The netherlands: here similar SMES waiting for the integrated platform to arrive are struggling to survive
The workshop participants agreed that the attractiveness of this innovation chain would be tempered again by IP issues a large number of companies, distributed IP,
whether generic platform (rather than specific application tailored innovation chains) is the path to take. An alternative to this path was innovation chain 4
which focused on heterogeneous clusters. Since a large investment is needed in integration there are specific advantages to be gained by building on proximity relations.
as well as a funnel for innovations coming from university research. Thus such a heterogeneous cluster would centre around university research and fabrication facilities18,
On the other hand, advantages of such an approach are that new innovations will be occurring within the cluster
The workshop participants pointed out that there are attempts at all four innovation chains. Innovation chain 1 has been attempted by large companies such as Siemens for relatively simple integrated microfluidics.
One participant mentioned a Lab-cow: an interesting integrated microfluidic device was designed first and then began the search for an application,
Innovation chain 2 has occurred with companies such as Glaxo-Smith-Kline19 and spin-offs such as those University of Hull (UK) and Yole Developpement,
a French MEMS business development consultancy. 20 There are attempts in The netherlands for innovation chain 3 building off micro
and nanotechnology SME networks such as Minacned. 21 Innovation chain 4 is currently occurring at the University of Twente (NL) where a start-up company with a specific sensor is acting as platform integrator.
Each of these innovation chains are possible but 3 and 4 were agreed to be the most plausible ways forward (based on past failures of innovation chains 1 and 2). The participants also raised more general issues
which came up as part of the exploration of innovation chains. A major point was distributed IP for development of an integrated platform,
the agreement being that new models need to be sought. For innovation chain 3 this is indeed a challenge.
For innovation 4 however this can be handled if there is one system integrator which targets a specific application
and builds its network based around this. The IP issue can be generalised to many projected nanotechnology innovations
where technologies cannot be products in themselves but must be part of a system of technologies to be enabled. 22 Furthermore,
Although pressure is on them to provide research that can be turned into innovation chains, there is little acknowledgement of time spent on doing this as opposed to research
which can in themselves be turned into innovations. 23 This also a general issue in relation to the current situation of strategic science and application oriented research. 532 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting
The outcome of the workshop was that innovation chain 4 is agreed to be the most promising approach to creating an integrated lab-on-a-chip platform.
Salient issues of the management of socio-technical aspects of this particular innovation chain were highlighted also.
MPM-1 was developed to map technology-based complexitiie of future projections from various communities and for various phases of a prospective innovation chain.
then any of the innovation chains identified can create the matrix of entanglements constitutive of the new technology-application paradigm:
cell analysis based medical diagnostics could be driven by MNC based innovation, SME based innovation, etc.
What specific kinds of innovation chains can be stimulated? What happens technologically, organizationally along the way and needs strategic rethinking?
The maps can be used to train programme officers/portfolio managers on anticipated issues along respective innovation chains,
what innovation chain to invest in, or which actor strategies of building up such chains to support.
This allowed discussion to go ahead on forms of innovation chain and ways of bridging 534 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 the gaps.
This start-up company is attempting innovation chain 4 (heterogeneous clusters) based on an application oriented innovation chain where users are involved already in the design process.
if they can gain extra insights on organizational innovation chains (as well as the technology paths), and thus a tailoring of the tool for the start-up company is currently ongoing.
References 1 W. J. Abernathy, K. B. Clark, Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction, Res.
Improving Distributed intelligence in Complex Innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science and Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP.
technology policy and innovation studies with a final thesis focusing on cosmonautics research in the former Soviet union with field research undertaken at the Cosmonaut Training Centre (Star City) and the Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow.
Currently he is at Utrecht University, Department of Innovation and Environmental Studies, where he analyzes genetics/genomics based innovation chains and actor strategies in the converging zone of the food and health sectors. 538 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change
75 (2008) 517 538
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
