as well as research and innovation agendas to support these dialogues and policy discussions. Innovation is both a source of,
and possible key response to, disruptive transformations, if broadly conceived in technological, social, organisational and institutional terms.
The scale and direction of innovation are determined by a mix of factors, many of them national in their nature,
Without that competition a major source of methodological innovation, a means of quality assurance, and for control of costs would be lost. 4. Understanding the complex and systemic nature of grand challenges The issues covered by the term‘grand challenges'naturally lend themselves to a global outlook,
social and business innovation simultaneously supported by political will. Furthermore, 5 and 13 underline the ongoing need for the greater involvement of stakeholders who can introduce necessary capabilities
and interest in research and innovation to respond to grand challenges. Understanding the difficulties for FTA to dealing with the grand challenges of humanity helps
where FTA needs to demonstrate that there might be opportunities for innovation and new markets in grand challenges.
For instance, 14 give waste-based innovation as an example of such opportunity, which appears to be suitable for aligning scientific/technological
and the need for social shaping seem critical to advance FTA practice in light of anticipating disruptive innovations and events. 382 C. Cagnin et al./
The underlying claim is that innovation itself needs to be oriented along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems.
and define research and innovation agendas. In both countries, public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation in order to address grand societal challenges.
Schirrmeister and Warnke 14 contribute towards building foresight capacities for systemic and structural transformations by sharing their experience on a project that explores future innovation patterns.
These contributed in a specific way to opening up new perspectives on the future of innovation and potential structural transformation of innovation processes,
the need for adequate enabling platforms between innovation demand and innovation supply, the need to adopt new innovation formats
The project results also underlined the need for different types of innovation policy instruments to deal with newly emerging innovation patterns rather than just different priorities.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 379 385 practice and assist in considering transformations that are going to take us closer to anticipating disruptive innovations and events.
5 P. De Smedt, K. Borch, T. Fuller, Future scenarios to inspire innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
14 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke, Envisioning structural transformation lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation, Technol.
and practice in RTDI (Research, Technology development and Innovation), business strategy and sustainability, environment management, cleaner production and foresight.
He has contributed to international research projects on STI policies, innovation, as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, and been a member of several EU expert groups.
making us believe that the world is a much more predictable place than it really is. 4 With ontological unpredictability Tuomi refers to the theoretical incompatibility between innovation
and predictive models when disruptive and downstream innovation become more frequent, based on the argument that we can only retrospectively know what we are talking about, due to the unpredictability of natural, behavioural and social processes that shape innovation. 387 K. Haegeman et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 386 397 qualitative) as an imaginative projection of current knowledge in which formal methods and techniques play a subsidiary role (p. 753.
and anticipating disruptive innovation, forecasting radical changes and thus limiting the scale of failures (with a focus on market pull vis-à-vis the technology push approach).
is therefore of the essence. 9 8 During the 2011 FTA Conference a lively discussion was devoted to the shift of FTA usage from exploring potential risks to inspiring sustainable innovation.
and addressing different types of innovation. 9 A good example is the contribution that FTA can provide to policy and decision makers in charge of the prioritisation of alternative technological options.
a case of strategic agenda setting in European innovation, innovation: management, Policy Pract. 14 (3)( 2012) 449 469.40 F. K. Jin, W. R. Fah, N d. En, L. M. Wei, L
and worked in innovation, education and local development policies. She has experience in quantitative and qualitative research methods
In this research, we choose the Derwent Innovation Index (DII) as the data source and Vantagepoint (VP) for data cleaning and extraction.
and the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. We are further sincerely grateful
A l. Porter, Innovation forecasting, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 56 (1997) 25 47.15 R. Haupt, M. Kloyer, M. Lange, Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development, Res.
Technol. 34 (4)( 2009) 57 60.21 Y. C. Wu, T. C. Yen, RFID technology innovations:
Policy 29 (2000) 409 434.23 D. Hicks, A. Breitzman, K. Hamilton, F. Narin, Research excellence and patented innovation, Sci.
and technology assessment, describing the competition among firms or innovations, or simply among products struggling for a bigger market share.
and diffusion of innovations and pure learning processes (as for instance the growth curve of a child's vocabulary achievement,
what is the common denominator underlying the growth phenomena of populations of multiplying cells, Drosophila, humans, and innovations?
Yet it is the arising of these robust and resilient structures, in other words, the emergence of innovations, that is of profound interest,
that can be subsumed under the following questions are innovations (or novelties) in the biological, cultural,
To begin with it should be stand out that the notion of innovation belongs itself to that collection of fuzzy concepts,
innovation is by far the more transversal of them, bearing probably all possible human spheres of action.
and 11,500, 000 for innovation! But attention please: the true winner in this modern competition is evolution with more than 17,000, 000 hits,
I want to advance the following arguments favoring an evolutionary approach to define innovation and then answering in the positive the question above about the same nature of novelties in the biological, cultural and technological realm:!
"In biological systems an innovation can be achieved without necessarily changing the genetic underpinnings of a feature,
dgenotypest by any sequence of building blocks, ddifferential reproductive successt by differential adoption in a market and dphenotypet by technical expression. $ My final argument favoring an evolutionary definition of innovation regards the aspect mentioned above of how strongly evolutionary
4. My proposal of definition is then simply 4. 1. Innovation is the emergence of a new adaptive design This definition has sufficiently broad meaning
Looking at the history of inventions and basic innovations we can find some evident cases of intended
which otherwise open the way to the revival of Joseph Schumpeter's ideas of a evolutionary global economy driven by the clustering of basic innovations
this set of processes is driven fundamentally innovation (each in its own scale), exhibits power-law behavior and it is poised in the critical boundary between order
Stephen Wolfram 32, has been applied to the evolutionary simulation of the innovation diffusion process by a group of the Hebrew University led by Jacob Goldenberg and Sorin Salomon 33,
as Gerald Silverberg and Bart Verspagen 35, for the study of the distribution of innovations;
David Goldberg 37, for instance, for studying the connection between the two basic processes of innovation, continual improvement and discontinuous change.
and selection+recombination as expressing the basic mechanisms of continual improvement and innovation, respectively. In the present stage of our knowledge no one can be sure
and more energetic among a broad innovation-driven and co-evolutionary set of processes, composing the whole of the world system.
discovery, invention and innovation cycles revisited, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 18 (1980) 257 282.11 T. Modis, Predictions:
, S. Efroni, Using cellular automata modeling of the emergence of innovations, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68 (2001) 293 308.
the reawakening of extinct innovations, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 71 (2004) 881 896.35 G. Silverberg, B. Verspagen, A percolation model of innovation in complex technology spaces, J. Econ.
Dyn. Control 29 (2005) 225 244.36 Z. Michalewicz, D. B. Vogel, How to Solve it:
Modern Heuristics, Springer, Berlin, 2002.37 D. Goldberg, The design of innovations: lessons from the genetics, lessons from the real world, Technol.
Policy learning is also a major issue in evolutionary economics of innovation 27 29. Early applications of adaptive policies are also found in the field of environmental management 30,31,
Change 77 (2010) 1195 1202.48 W. J. Abernathy, K. B. Clark, Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction, Res.
Future scenarios to inspire innovation Peter De Smedt a,, Kristian Borch b, Ted Fuller c a SVR, Research centre of the Flemish Government, Boudewijnlaan 30, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium b Department of Management Engineering
Due to the social dynamics of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging, however there is lack of exploitation of novel ideas
This is needed because innovation itself needs to be oriented along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Reflexive inquiry Innovation Scenario practice Grand challenges 1. Introduction In the context of this paper, future scenarios can be seen as narratives set in the future to explore how the society would change
and to disclose some principles by which scenario processes can inspire innovation. Today's grand challenges from climate change to unemployment and poverty go beyond economic
whose distinctive feature is disagreement among experts and stakeholders about the long-term consequences of present-day innovations 11.
and systems of innovation are shaped by social, cultural and political power as well as by technological rationalism and such indeterminism makes systemic approaches to innovation policy far from linear or predictable.
technology and innovation not solely for generating economic benefits, but also for anticipating and responding to the grand challenges 15.
At a strategic level, the European union took up this challenge via the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative as part of the Europe 2020 strategy launched in 2010.
and innovation instruments and actors to tackle the innovation emergency related to the grand challenges the European union is facing 16, p1.
The traditional concepts and models of innovation are not always adequate to embrace the complexity for addressing the grand challenges 10,15.
innovations are not only contributing to the solutions. Innovations in the past have been also part of the current unsustainable trends.
Therefore innovation research needs increasingly be oriented towards the challenges presented by environmental complexity and socioeconomic turbulence 25.
and inspire innovation, we analyze several scenario exercises to better understand the role future scenarios can play as a tool for orienting innovation systems.
and adapting our underlying theoretical premises. 3. Concepts of innovation, futures thinking and scenarios 3. 1. Innovation systems Innovation involves the application of new ideas
or the reapplication of old ideas in new ways to develop better solutions to our needs 31.
Innovation is invariably a cumulative, collaborative activity in which ideas are shared, tested, refined, developed and applied 32.
with innovation no longer seen primarily as a process of discovery, i e. new scientific or technological principles,
Due to the socially dynamic characteristic of innovation 37, new socio-technical (sub systems will emerge over time 22.
diffuse and use innovations 38. Hence, innovation leads to change only to the extent that agents are successful in taking advantage of the opportunities,
i e. agents need to develop capabilities 39. Innovation in the 21st century differs from the model embraced in the last century
(i e. profit-oriented and nationally targeted) with a linear, technological and deterministic characteristic 15. Although the innovation process is now much more open and receptive to social influences,
and interests in research and innovation to address the grand challenges. For instance, Hekkert et al. 40 highlight that stimulating knowledge flows (alone) is not sufficient to induce technological change and economic performance.
This stresses the importance of stakeholders as sources of innovation. The required characteristics of the new mode of public involvement are challenging:
Hence, the social dimension in innovation should be acknowledged as a legitimate research area and linkages with social systems of innovation and social innovation stakeholders should be strengthened
so that innovation experiments include the inherent social dimension within the research community 15.3.2. Futures thinking Futures thinking is used for medium to long-term strategic analysis and planning.
According to Jørgensen 41, citing Dreborg 42, there are three modes of thinking about the future, each with their own methodologies the predictive, the eventualities and the visionary mode of thinking, see Table 1 for a more elaborate description.
as well as to innovation objectives and milestones 55. The Delphi method is developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method,
This technique is used often in national foresights to guide innovation and national research policies 58 60. All the above describe approaches to futures thinking during which (potential) inputs for scenarios can be produced.
missing the opportunity to explore the potential for innovation in conflicting views. Although legitimate for several reasons,
In addition, our analysis indicates that scenarios with a strong focus on consensus during the development are often too vague and too broad for defining tangible innovation opportunities.
We found that crystallizing concrete policy initiatives for innovation from long-term future images, i e. beyond twenty years, can be difficult.
In that sense the potential for innovation within the system (i e. inward reflection) is acknowledged less. When considered from the perspective of creating legitimacy for action we also suggest that the scenarios in this group could benefit fromcomplementary techniques connecting the long-term future images to the present via stepping stones.
and establishing a common vision among the innovation stakeholders as a boundary framework before moving into technology roadmapping 70.4.2.2.
Clearly innovation is an essential feature of the scenarios. 2 PRELUDE: PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe. 437 P. De Smedt et al./
The innovation potential of the scenarios can be strengthened through broadening the system boundaries and enriching the future images.
In addition, including perspectives from the different stakeholders can reveal new areas for innovation 73.4.2.3. Backcasting from principles A third group of practice is characterized by a focus on backcasting from principles.
This will provide essential information about the robustness of the innovation potential. The 3rd SCAR foresight exercise (see Appendix 1) also falls into this group with its focus on research priorities
and innovation to meet necessary change and uncertainties in the agri-food sector facing resource constrains and environmental limits.
and using future scenarios to inspire innovation do not only deal with the collection of data and models;
and how future scenarios can inspire innovation. 3 http://www. naturalstep. org/./438 P. De Smedt et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 5. Discussion Due to the social dynamic characteristic of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging 24.
however, there is lack of exploitation of innovative solutions for orienting innovation in itself along more sustainable pathways 15.
At the same time innovation has become one of the main engines of growth. However, these two overarching trends have not yet been reconciled 15.
Hence, it is important to recognize that representing scientific and technological diversity offers an important means to help foster more effective forms of innovation
This complexity challenges the capacity of innovation systems to acknowledge the social dimension of innovation and to learn from experience.
we can then attribute the most characteristic mode of thinking. 4 Innovation is not only about invention, creation,
To strengthen the enablers for innovation within the scenario process, the link between practice and theory,
and implications) cross-fertilizations between the techniques of the different groups can enhance the innovation potential.
the success of innovation is to a great extent dependent upon the activities and abilities of individuals who enthusiastically support it. 6. Conclusions In this paper we analyzed
Our analyses of the scenario case studies from Appendix 1 revealed elements of good practice and implications on how to better address innovation through future scenarios.
In addition, we also identified some points of departure for further refinement of current scenario practices with respect to innovation.
but often too vague, too broad to inspire innovation Eventuality Possibility Explore contrasting futures and conceptualize future situations for the long-term where uncertainties are expressed differently Allows rigorously exploring boundaries and complexity.
Often an imbalance between outward/inward reflection limiting the recognition of its internal innovation capacity Predictive Probability Better contextualize
what we know to be prepared for upcoming situations Allows defining (a sequence of) clear steps for innovation Weak on surprise
and external change Visionary Preference Envision how society can be designed in a better (e g. more sustainable) way Allows creating authentic alternative visions to guide innovation Weak on clear targets,
and defining areas for innovation Weak on complexity of socio-technological systems Evolutionary Interaction Engage in sustainable pathways enabling transformations of innovation systems Allows a systemized negotiation process linking a variety of social actors
innovation Risk of not reaching out to key (technological) actors 440 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 acknowledge the limits of our analysis:
diffuse, and use innovations. Learning of participants is not always an objective as such, but the process of exchanging knowledge is recognized to overcome some limits of conventional research,
i e. integrating different modes of futures thinking, is needed for orienting innovation along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems.
and linkages with social innovators and other social innovation stakeholders should be strengthened so that social innovation experiments inform the research community.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the COST Action A22 network, IPTS and different past and present foresight network initiatives such as the European foresight Platform and Forlearn for organizing creative discussion platforms on foresight and scenario initiatives.
, E. A. Eriksson, T. Malmér, B. A. Mölleryd, Foresight in Nordic innovation systems, Nordic Innovation Centre, Oslo, 2007.7 T. J. Chermack, Studying scenario planning:
Pract. 3 (2001) 311 337.15 OECD, Fostering innovation to address social challenges, in: Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011.16 EC, Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2011.
Executive Summary) European commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, 2011.17 G. Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, 1994.18
R. Bradfield, G. Wright, G. Burt, G. Cairns, K. Van der Heijden, The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning, Futures
L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003.26 L. Gunderson, C. Folke, M. A. Janssen, Reflective practice, Ecol.
L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, 2003.32 C. Leadbeater, We-Think:
The Power of Mass Creativity, Profile Books, London, 2008.33 C. Freeman, The national system of innovation in historical perspective, Camb.
B. A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.35 R. Nelson, S. Winter, In search of a useful theory of innovation, Res.
Policy 14 (2002) 1 13.37 R. Sternberg, J. Pretz, J. Kaufman, Types of innovation, in:
L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003.38 In: C. Edguist (Ed.),System of Innovation:
Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter publishers, London, 1997.39 B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz, On the nature, function,
Guiding Exploratory Innovation and Strategy, the 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: 12 & 13,may 2011, May 13 2011.71 O. Saritas, J. Aylen, Using scenarios for roadmapping:
Paper Presented at the Future seminar of the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, 7th of June, 2007, in:
social innovation in a complex world, in: OECD (Ed.),Fostering Innovation to Address Social challenges, Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011, pp. 59 64.80 M. Godet, The art of scenarios and strategic planning:
tools and pitfalls, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 65 (2000) 3 22.81 T. J. B. M. Postma, F. Liebl, How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool, Technol.
Chang. 72 (2005) 161 173.82 J. Hauschildt, Promoters and champions in innovations: development of a research paradigm, in:
L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003. Peter De Smedt has a background in ecological system analyses.
and define research and innovation agendas of established science industry networks. The aim of the paper is to show what problems/challenges with regard to the innovation system have been addressed and
Governance Emerging technologies Key enabling technologies Nanotechnology Public engagement Foresight Technology assessment Responsible research and innovation 1. Introduction As science and technology become more central to economic development,
A decade ago, the question addressed how to maximize the contribution of such technologies to economic innovation with the intention of enhancing competitiveness 1, 2. Today,
and define research and innovation agendas. In both countries, the public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
and vision building which impact the complex interplay of factors governing innovation trajectories 27.1 http://www. iso. org/iso/iso technical committee. html?
The goals defined in the latest NNI strategic plan of 2011 address this user-centric ecosystem by covering the whole ecosystem of innovation:
they address R&d (Advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development program), innovation (Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefit),
The strategy focused on so-called lead innovations, value chain-oriented collaborative projects with partners from science and industry.
and this institutional fragmentation can also be observed with regard to the governance of science, technology and innovation in the field of nanotechnology. 4. Comparing the US and Germany 4. 1. Timing and intervention Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,
Participatory processes as well as different concepts of responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology were triggered by global debates on the risks of nanotechnology. 4. 2. International screening
either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation to address grand societal challenges.
The US nanotechnology governance is oriented conceptually toward responsible research and innovation and broad participation. It has established broad networks with a focal organization as the basis for implementing its strategic vision.
Envisioning structural transformation lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation Elna Schirrmeister, Philine Warnke Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany a r t
Experiences from a foresight project exploring future innovation patterns (www. innovation-futures. org) are discussed. Four specific features were applied
The findings of the project indicate interesting changes in the nexus of innovation demand and innovation supply.
We argue that all four innovative methodological features contributed in a specific way to opening up new perspectives on the future of innovation
Vision Structural transformation Inductive approach Foresight methodology Innovation pattern Visualisation Scenarios Weak signals 1. Introduction Envisioning structural transformation in foresight exercises is challenging.
Increasingly, innovation policy strategies such as the European commission's Innovation Union flagship initiative 3 are addressing socioeconomic challenges such as sustainability, health, and security.
A number of studies are pointing towards the need for more fundamental changes using notions such as transformative innovation 6, system transition 7,
and systemic eco-innovation 8. All these concepts are calling for transformative visions, scenarios and roadmaps challenging today's paradigms and basic assumptions on system dynamics.
A third arena where systemic change needs to be addressed is innovation itself as its very definition seems to be shifting.
in practice innovation is a coupling and matching processwhere interaction is the critical element 9. Rothwell's fifth-generation innovation concept describes innovation as amulti-actor processwhich requires intensive interaction at intra-and inter-firm
levels 10. For decades the dominant definition of innovation as new products and processes that are introduced to the market combined with the common understanding of companies as the main actors in this process was questioned hardly ever.
Nowadays new innovation concepts are being suggested from a number of different directions. Increasingly, phenomena like social innovation, service innovation, low-tech innovation
relational innovation and value innovation are recognised as highly relevant innovation arenas extending the standard definition 11 13.
At the same time, with the notion of open innovation the focus on the firm as the key innovation actor has broadened substantially towards social entrepreneurs, users, customers, public sector and citizens 14,15.
Creativity as the innovation competence is assigned no longer exclusively to specific professions such as designers and artists or entrepreneurs but extends to ordinary people and everyday life.
Accordingly, a change in innovation can no longer be investigated as a change in direction or priority but needs to be recognised as a change in kind.
Future innovation landscapes may function according to a different logic all together. The INFU (Innovation Futures) foresight project was set out to explore such future innovation landscapes.
INFU was financed by the European commission in the 7th Framework programme Area Social sciences and Humanities (SSH. It was carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the Austrian Institute of technology AIT (Austria), Fraunhofer ISI (Germany), Z punkt (Germany) and Solutioning Design Scenarios SDS (Belgium.
1. screening for signals of changes linked to innovation in a wide range of online
When investigating new patterns of innovation INFU was focussing on fundamental transformation in the way innovation is organised in business, public sector and society 16.
and discussed possible future innovation landscapes together with innovation actors from a wide range of backgrounds. In order to do justice to the transformative nature of the subject
In particular, the following four features served to enable the discovery of structural change in innovation: Inductive foresight approach Visual inspiration Assessment of coverage of dimensions of change Extended openness for diversity (prolonged divergence.
Both these 1 www. innovation-futures. org. 454 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 approaches can be termed inductive
The aim is to explore the future of innovation in a rigorous inductive approach with a strong emphasis on open collection of phenomena
In the first phase, by scanning weak signals 22, all sorts of observations of striking innovation practiceswere collected in a loose and open manner.
Their visibility is characteristically low 22 p. 4. The definition included uptake of newways of doing innovation in fields where they were previously unknown
which aimed at finding phenomena that stand out fromestablished innovation patterns, the project team agreed on a list of sources,
or innovation focus and websites as well as blogs on innovation and research. Scientific journals were excluded from the weak signal scanning.
Instead, a thorough review of academic literature on new innovation patterns was carried out 16. A total of 63 weak signals were identified,
For each signal of change a possible impact on the future of innovation was estimated in an intuitive manner by the project members
Each cluster pointed towards a specific change in innovation patterns, derived from diverse signals of change from various sources of information.
The resulting visions were discussed with innovation experts with different perspectives on innovation patterns through interviews and an online survey.
Accordingly, participation was limited to a restricted circle of people with special expertise in relevant aspects of innovation or candidates for an interview.
Accordingly, a structured assessment of very different aspects of changing innovation patterns was possible within interviews of 30 min up to 3 h. Considering that the participation in the online survey was restricted to a specific circle of people
but also in the weak signal collection available on the internet. 2 The movie is available at www. innovation-futures. org. 455 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change
e g. what if user involvement in innovation process developed into an innovation actively developed by the demand...
Web-Extracted Innovation Starting weak signals: Amplification Today data on the behaviour of people is collected already constantly
and use crowd sourcing to foster their innovation, to get inspiration and to benchmark creative dynamic in their sectors.
The innovation would then be triggered by changes in the behaviour of people and there would be no time lag, thanks to real time investigation.
web-extracted innovation. 456 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 Fig. 3. Screenshot from the INFU web-based
This holds especially true for the vision Darwin's Innovation that was quite provoking. It received highly controversial assessments by the experts ranging from very interesting to bullshit.
and vision number 10 (innovation imperative) all the visions showed a similar distribution, but for each vision different people considered the vision familiar or unfamiliar.
This was the case for Innovation on request showing an election with personal attendance. This image seemed to foster the idea of time consuming and slow participative processes.
This framework was developed by the project consortium based on the review of academic literature on innovation patterns
The findings at that point were indicating a shift towards demand-driven innovation combined with a much more diffused involvement in the innovation process and more diverse innovation skills.
others illustrated amore focussed, occasional innovation pattern. Concerning themotivation for innovation the observations represented a large diversity from strictly profit-oriented innovation patterns up to mission-driven innovation patterns aiming to support social benefits regardless of profit expectations.
The framework developed within the INFU project supported an analysis of structural changes hinted at by several visions.
Throughout the project emerging findings on changing innovation patterns were situated in this scheme. One-sided modifications towards one specification extreme triggered a deliberate search for possibly opposing signals
E g. in the case of openness special effortswere made to check for possible signals of closure in innovation patterns.
and openness, aiming at the assessment of diverging rather than converging elements of changing innovation patterns.
the project team identified eight critical issues that seemed to have special potential for changing today's innovation patterns.
These so-called nodes of change in innovation 24 were subjected then to in depth discussionwithin the INFU mini panels (Table 1). The co-ordinators were identified in the course of the interviews as people with particularly relevant ideas and high
emblematic images (e g. for widespread creativity, Fig. 8) abstract schemes (e g. for social experimentation, Fig. 9) stories fromthe future ranging from short day in a life segments (e g. for deliberative innovation
organisations or infrastructure. 3. INFU findings and lessons learnt 3. 1. The future of innovation preliminary insights The findings indicate interesting changes in the mediation between innovation demand
and innovation supply 29. A wide variety of hybrid value creation modelswith novel configurations of innovation actors emerged.
Prominent features appearing across Innovation initiative Supply driven Demand Driven innovation's relation to production Separated-Integrated Innovation involvement Specific-Diffused Innovation intensity Slowing down
Speeding-up Inovation specificity For everybody-High specialised Innovation skills Diffused Specialised Innovation loaction Inside-Outside Innovation openess Open--Closed/Secret Innovation gravity
Centralised-Distributed Innovation continuity Permanent-Occasional Innovation acessibility Free-Private Innovation tangibility Tangible-Intangible Innovation motivation Profit/Benefit-Normative/Mission
the need for adequate enabling platforms between innovation demand and innovation supply, the need to adopt new innovation formats
Some of the proposed aspects of new innovation patterns such as the waste based innovation or the city level open innovation platform seem particularly suitable for aligning social and technological innovation towards structural transformation.
the framework supported the extraction of the following structural changes in innovation patterns 30:1) Mediation and co-ordination:
The position of markets as the main mediator between innovation demand and supply is challenged by several newinnovation patterns.
Fig. 8. Element from INFU vision"Ubiquious innovation"."Table 1 INFU mini panels. Node of change covered Mini panel co-ordinator Visioning approach 1. Citizens role in innovation governance Anders Jacobi Danish Board of Technology,
Denmark Visioning session among CIVISTIA consortium in Copenhagen 2. Automatising innovation Patrick Corsi Consultant, Belgium Four interviews with key companies (IBM, EPFL, INSEAT, ISTIA
innovation) and group phone discussion 3. New spatial distribution of innovation innovation chain management Anna Trifilova and Bettina von Stamm Professors, Innovation Management;
Innovation Leadership Forum, UK (Russia) Three seminars in the framework of international conferences with researchers and company representatives in Nürnberg, London and Exeter) 4. City-driven systemic
innovation Daniel Kaplan FING association pour la Fondation Internet Nouvelle Génération, The next Generation Internet Foundation,
France Workshop envisioning the open innovation city with actors from city councils and companies involved with city level innovation in Paris 5. Innocamp Society Dominik Wind Until we see new land (Innovation camp Start-up),
Germany Workshop with stakeholders of future innovation camps in Berlin 6. Ubiquitous Innovation (including dark sides) Rolandas Strazdas Professor,
Innovation Management, Lithuania Creative session with Global Creators in Vilnius by an Innovation consultancy 7. Waste Based (open innovation Jay Cousins Founder of Open Design City
Berlin, Germany (US) Workshop in Berlin with stakeholders and key actors from cradle to cradle communityb in Berlin 8. Social experimentation Stéphane Vincent La 27e Région,
France Drafting of Citizens Agency in a visioning session in Brussels with actors in social innovation a Citizens Visions in Science and Technology FP7 SSH project. b Cradle to Cradle:
Citizens seemto gain relevance in innovation both in deciding on innovation priorities and in contributing to the innovation process.
and using innovation is changing. Company profit as the main driver of innovation activity is being complemented.
Solving social problems become an important driving force to innovate for both companies and individuals. In addition, individual persons are motivated to contribute to innovation activities (such as crowdsourcing initiatives or idea competitions) for their pleasure.
Software will play an ever-growing role in innovation. More and more innovation steps may become partly
or fully automatised (e g. by using web crawlers to identify ideas). New forms of interplay between human creativity and automatised combinations of elements are emerging.
New innovation enabling infrastructures emerge alongside with new innovation formats. In particular enabling infrastructures for community innovation such as the innovation camps, shared fab-labs and co-working spaces are likely to become more important.
In addition virtual/digital global infrastructures may increasingly be required. 6) Perception of creativity: The very meaning of being innovative is shifting.
Formation of identities and social relations as well as everyday creativity may increasingly be recognised as core aspects of innovation.
Making his contribution at the yearly I-day of Innovation Fig. 10. Element from INFU mini panel vision Deliberative Innovation A day in a life of a Citizen in the Deliberative Innovation Scheme.
Fig. 9. Element from INFU mini panel Participatory Innovation. 463 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466
(7) Spatial shifts: Innovation will change its spatial patterns: local elements are likely to gain relevance resulting in a more distributed innovation scenery
while new regions become more important in global innovation chains. 8) Systemic sustainability innovation: Innovation patterns fostering systemtransitions towards sustainability rather than isolated product development are required more andmore
in order to address societal challenges. This requires consideration of social and ecological aspects throughout the entire innovation process.
In subsequent phases of the INFU project, the findings were assessed by actors from various stakeholder groups with respect to impacts for society, economy and ecosystems 29.
Finally, policy implications arising from the changing nature of innovation were discussed with policy makers from various realms and levels in interviews and within one dedicated policy workshop.
Across policy perspectives the need for different types of innovation policy instruments to deal with newly emerging innovation patterns rather than just different priorities was stressed.
As this paper is focussing on the methodological insights emerging from the INFU project we will not go deeper into the findings and conclusions
In particular the policy actors welcomed the fact that INFU underpinned the exploration of fundamental changes in the innovation landscape rather than isolated responses to individual trends. 3. 2. Lessons learnt methodology From a methodological point of view the aim of the INFU project was to contribute towards building
Four methodological innovations were adopted in the project and contributed in a specific way to opening up newperspectives for thinking about the future of innovation and potential structural transformation of innovation processes:
The inductive approach of the project was successful in integrating diverse perspectives and stimulating diverse experts to participate in the process.
and the collection of the signals provided at the website was assessed as very valuable by experts dealing with innovation patterns.
Themajority of these responses indicate that the project succeeded in opening up new perspectives for exploring the future of innovation with relevance for strategic conversations among various actor groups.
because to some extent the INFU perspectives were transcending the underlying assumptions dominating today's perception of innovation.
Europe 2020, Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Brussels, 2010.4 P. Warnke, Implementing transformative innovation policy priorities, in:
JRC-IPTS (Ed.),The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), Book of Abstracts, Sevilla, 2011.5 P.-B. Joly, A. Rip, M. Callon, Reinventing innovation, in:
Governance of Innovation: Firms, Clusters and Institutions in a Changing Setting, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2010, pp. 19 32.6 F. Steward, Breaking the boundaries, Transformative Innovation for the Global Good, NESTA, 2008.7
J. de Haan, J. Rotmans, Patterns in transitions: understanding complex chains of change, Technol. Forecast.
Eco-innovation Putting the EU on the Path to a Resource and Energy efficient Economy, 2009.9 J. Tidd, J. Bessant, K. Pavitt, Managing Innovation:
Weinheim u. a.,2005.10 R. Rothwell, Successful industrial innovation: critical success factors for the 1990's, R&d Manag. 22 (3)( 1992) 221 239.11 W c. Kim, R. Mauborgne, Strategy, value innovation,
and the knowledge economy, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 78 (September October 1999) 129 141.12 I. Miles, Innovation In services, Oxford university Press, New york, 2005.13 G. Mulgan, R. Ali, R. Halkett
, B. Sanders, In and out of sync, The Challenge of Growing Social innovations, NESTA Research report, 2007.14 H. W. Chesbrough, Open innovation:
, W. Rhomberg, S. Saldern von, P. Warnke, V. Watkins, Structured and documented collection of current signals for arising changes in innovation patterns (deliverable D 1
. 1), www. innovation-futures. org 2010.17 D. Mietzner, in: Strategische Vorausschau und Szenarioanalysen: Methodenevaluation und neue Ansätze, Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2009.18 M. B. A. van Asselt, S. A. van't Klooster, P. W. F. van Notten
and contrasted visions (deliverable D 2. 3), www. innovation-futures. org 2010.24 E. Schirrmeister, P. Warnke, K.-H. Leitner,
Innovation futures scripts nodes of change in innovation patterns emerging from the explorative dialogue on the 19 INFU visions (deliverable D 3. 1), www. innovation-futures. org
5. 1), www. innovation-futures. org 2011.30 K.-H. Leitner, W. Rhomberg, P. Warnke, E. Schirrmeister, A. Kasztler, INFU Policy strategy Report
A Practitioner's Guide to Developing and Using Scenarios to Direct Strategy in Today's Uncertain Times, Thomson Southwestern, Mason, Ohio, 2006.33 J. Buur, B. Matthews, Participatory innovation, Int
She has been Deputy Head of the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight between 2009 and 2011.
As a mechanical engineer she has conducted various foresight projects on future prospects for industrial production and on research and innovation patterns on behalf of government authorities
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011