systemic changes and experimental and observational errors, can never be eliminated completely from the decision making process. Thus, we and others argue that instead of using forecasting methods to produce single-value deterministic images of the future,
the identification of innovation is not a straightforward process for the businesses involved. Unfolding the definition of innovation
Moreover, the process of developing Finnish national strategic centres for science, technology and innovation is underway in the technology fields with future importance for businesses and the society.
The further development of barometer to respond to the above mentioned challenges is already in process.
Index (Fagerberg) Success of Software Process Improvement (Emam) 1184 T. Loikkanen et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Appendix B. Technology barometer 2007 Technology instrument for measuring citizens'attitudes and the nation's orientation towards a knowledge-based
The methodology combination of a national foresight process in Germany Kerstin Cuhls a,, 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
the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) launched a new foresight process which aimed at four specific targets.
This paper focuses on the concept design of the process and explains one of the methods the future online survey in more detail.
Foresight process Fully fledged foresight Bibliometrics Strategic partnerships Research alliances 1. Introduction In September 2007, the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) launched a new foresight process
The process started with four objectives and was tailored along them. The BMBF Foresight process as it was called,
The process linked both foresight and monitoring in its integrated approach. The process had impacts along the six functions of Foresight for policy-making that recently emerged in the Foresight debate (informing policy,
facilitating policy implementation, embedding participation, supporting policy definition and reconfiguring policy structures, as well as the symbolic function, see 1). Accordingly,
The process was considered to be the major approach of a German ministry in science and technology foresight.
The process started by monitoring present-day science and technology and was broadened to look into the future of the next 10 to 15 years and even further.
The foresight search activities were flanked by a monitoring process. With the assistance of an international panel
For the monitoring process, an international panel of well-known and acknowledged experts who have an overview in their fields were asked about the current state and new developments in research and technology.
The process therefore started with desk research research in databases and the internet. This search was combined with a bibliometric approach.
The milestones of the process are described in Fig. 2. The first workshop was held as a starting point in the process to define those topics which should be elaborated in more detail,
A bibliometric analysis provided further input in this process. For this stakeholder analysis, key words were defined by the topic coordinators.
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,
the different phases of the process delivered different outputs and served different purposes. The following sections describe which methodologies were applied in which phase of the process.
Especially the online survey which had the function of focussing the topics as well as an assessment function is described in more detail (Fig. 3). 3. 1. Starting phase of the process The process started with 14 broader topic fields that were derived from the German High-tech Strategy 2,
the BMBF portfolio and information gathered from within BMBF about specific foresight activities in the specialist divisions.
In the first phase of the process these fields were selected as starting points to search for new topics in science and technology, at first at the national level, later on internationally.
Fig. 2. Milestones of the process. 1189 K. Cuhls et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 The topic fields were:
process engineering etc.)7. Health research and medicine 8. Infrastructure technology, urbanisation and environmental development 9. Environmental protection technology and sustainable development 10.
In order to address crosscutting issues (objective no. 2 of the whole process a matrix was worked out in
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 3. 2. Search phase of the process The second phase of the foresight process encompassed a further national and international search, interviews with Monitoring Panel participants,
In general, most of them remained in the process, often with a shifted focus and additions at the interdisciplinary borders of the thematic spectrum.
The results from this survey, expert interviews and a set of criteria were supposed to be inputs to select interesting candidates for BMBF relating to the targets 1) and 2) of the process. 3. 3. The online survey Intentionally
the whole foresight process did not start with asking for the demand as e g. the predecessor process Futur 13,14
and technology landscape are really relevant and if theymeet the criteria of the process. In order to keep it simple and user-friendly,
longteer relevant topic areas that were selected already from the process were shown. On the next level, research questions and tasks were formulated.
This forced the topic coordinators of the process to formulate the future topics very precisely similar to a Delphi survey.
but the process of integration is continued still. Therefore, this paper focuses on expected impacts and the conceptual design.
Expected output and impact of the process What are expected the outputs and impacts of the BMBF Foresight process?
Direct outputs in the sense of deliverables were three reports to BMBF as well as a scientific report at the end of the whole process.
which described the starting points in the thematic fields as discussed in the first workshop of the process.
in order to inform them about the start of the process and deliver some first preliminary impressions of topics that would be the start of the search phase.
Nevertheless, the process had four different objectives and there are many more impacts and outputs in-between. One impact is by informing BMBF about things to come.
In these cases, the expected impact of the process will be an addition to the research agenda,
jointly translating outcomes from the collective process into specific options for policy definition and implementation. 1194 K. Cuhls et al./
and codifying this knowledge in reports for BMBF contributes directly to the first two objectives of the process (objectives no. 1 and 2). It is expected that policy implementation will be facilitated by this information, by defining strategic partnerships and recommendations,
as well as by including BMBF as one of the participants in the later phases of the process.
Participation is supposed to be broadened by involving very different kinds of experts in the process. Expert means a person knowledgeable about the topic, it can be someone from industry, policy-making itself, academia or the civil society in general.
The predecessor process of BMBF (Futur 13,14) tried to involve more persons from civil society, but in the later phases the need also to involve experts in the focus groups was felt,
This makes the complex process hopefully more transparent and understandable. Objective no. 4 directly addresses the support of the policy definition.
The workshop in autumn 2008 is supposed to directly contribute to the theoretical and case study discussion for the translation of outcomes from the collective process into specific options for policy definition and implementation.
Later in the process this will be performed very concretely in the thematic cases which are identified. Also for them, in joint workshops and discussions, the topics and outcomes will be worked into recommendations for policy options.
Therefore, the objectives of the process are formulated in such a way that they are realistic primarily for BMBF strategic departments to deal with
The process is in its first search phases open to all topics, but stress science and technology because other topics may not be implemented directly by a BMBF.
In this sense, the BMBF Foresight process is not an inherent, completely embedded process because intentionally, two institutions are performing the methodological part of the process that are regarded as neutral in having no direct thematic stakes in the process (although indirectly,
as they are part of the Fraunhofer Society whose institutes have strong stakes in the research landscape) but in close cooperation with BMBF.
but the process tries to channel the different interests. In the integration phase of the process in 2009,
the embedding is realised step by step. But it is definitely too early in the process to exhaustively evaluate the impacts according to these five dimensions.
Nevertheless from the current point of view, there are already some contributions. 5. Preliminary assessment and outlook Until the end,
Especially the direct predecessor process Futur 13,14 was promoted directly from the beginning. It was well-known and therefore,
so that at different stages of the process the previous work of BMBF (such as in the identification of the starting topic fields) as well as the foresight and other futureorieente processes planned in BMBF were taken into account.
On the other hand, the process was designed as a neutral process which is thematically not directly influenced by the ministry
There is already interest from BMBF departments to get involved into the process. This is already a success. Nevertheless,
The process is linked not to any particular political goal. The results can be put to use for different strategy building activities on different levels
The process is a fully fledged process that takes into account the sponsor and implementor of the results in different feedback loops, different internal discussions and internal workshops.
and included in the process 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.
even if the large process is acknowledged not after the next general elections in 2009, there is already an impact on some of the ministerial departments.
Cuhls, N. Ludewig, Introduction to futur the German Research Dialogue about the Futur process, in:
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management, Special issue FTA Seminar 2006,2008, pp. 369 387.19 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight:
and experience with adaptive, flexible process formats. We synthesize our analysis with a discussion of further research needs. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
and purpose of the exercise engaging a handful of people can add more value to the process than engaging several dozens,
In practice, the process of policy-making does not follow a linear sequencing of stages. Processes run in parallel, overlap, short-cut each other or are left out 15
This process resulted in a selection of fifty-two sources from academic journals, books and book chapters, working papers, policy papers, and research reports.
This process requires a longer time perspective. Drawing from the private sector literature, using scenarios to address the challenges facing firms can easily fail for another reason:
The main impacts of scenarios often result more from the process of developing them rather than from any published product describing the scenarios that were created.
All but one exercise with surprises was developed via an intuitive rather than formal process. None of the model-based scenario exercise included surprises 35.
and extend the scenario building process to introduce seemingly paradoxical elements to force a sensitivity analysis on the assumptions underlying claims of inconsistency 36.
the process is also less systematic, requires more time and a greater willingness and patience to engage in creative discussions.
However, one might argue that the higher costs of inductive approaches in the beginning might pay off later in the process given the fact that unmet expectations about the ability of scenarios to deliver novel insights about future developments oftentimes lead to frustration or rejection of the approach by policy-makers.
The process of doing so may persuade key decision makers of the need for further action.
Our process came to similar conclusions. In particular this concerns examples of futures thinking that failed to make knowledge useful
The overall process is coordinated by the Secretariat General of the European commission, and quality assurance should be reached through interadminisstrativ consultation,
Contradictions between product and process functions of scenario planning might aggravate this confusion. Does this assessment mean that future efforts should concentrate rather on indirect forms of scenario-based decision support,
gain trust into the process and build in elements of accountability is a second step which is more difficult to achieve.
the importance of the context and process of scenario creation is emphasized. But there is little evidence to connect these insights to resulting performance of the participating organisations.
and process of scenario creation affects their impacts. If and how probabilistic information should be used with scenario planning in public policy would be another concern.
More stable institutional settings are needed to experiment with flexible process formats that can adapt analytical efforts to specific information needs and conflict constellations.
Sound process management needs to exploit existing routes to influence, such as policy networks, the media, business schools or schools of government.
Given the manifold limitations within the process of policy-making, however, modesty is required about the claims made on behalf of scenario planning.
P. Sabatier (Ed.),Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.,1999, pp. 117 166.17 E. A. Parson, V. R. Burkett
Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual learning Process, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2006, Joint research Centre/European commission. 32 G. P. Hodgkinson, G. Wright, Confronting strategic
as far as that is possible, that the process of participation is genuine, inclusive and effective:
from defining its purpose to implementing the outcome then becomes a major challenge. 1. 2. The case for Inclusive foresight Widening the scope of consultation and making Foresight into a much wider social process,
the process has to be one in which experts and non-experts regard each other as equal
In this sense inclusiveness is a matter of definition and process. Extending participation introduces specific management
and process needs if Foresight programmes are to be extended into the social sphere without becoming chaotic 3. Foresight ought to be concerned with three questions:
and the public political sphere are not of concern here where the emphasis is on outlining a practical process for widening participation in Foresight in a polity that largely does not know Foresight exists
any practical process to enable inclusivity will need to take it into account. 2. 4. Should inclusivity be local, national or international?
i e. the influence of public institutions To set out indicatively process needs and their associated practical requirements. The FUTUR programme,
It will be important for them to promote inclusivity by making it an explicit requirement in the terms of reference of the studies that they promote. 3. 2. Process needs
is not likely to be part of the process. Fig. 1. Mitchell's VALS 1 behavioural typology.
which the supra-committee is charged with overseeing the entire process and being responsible for reporting and,
(i) the achievement of trust between wide groups of people who have widely differing behavioural characteristics and (ii) the management of a process in
or should be a heuristic process. Consequently its metaphor then needs to: Identify boundaries for the heuristic as a judgmental process Assemble alternative systems contexts for appreciating dynamically a situation and its content,
and means of ameliorating it as it evolves Challenge claims to knowledge, rationality or‘improvement'of a situation that rely on hidden boundary judgments
O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 4. 1. 2. Sources of power 4. The management process of Inclusive foresight ought to be open for all to see
Any participant may be considered by the management team and by other participants in the process, to have special insights,
or design process, including the handicapped, the unborn and the nonhuman (these latter groups are affected either explicitly or implicitly, immediately or prospectively,
It is the artifact design and production process (which includes services as artifacts) that links these aspects to the public and corporate worlds, a further component of the Sources of Knowledge part of the metaphor.
Fig. 4 illustrates the nature of the process. Foresight needs to follow how the critical mass evolves as this is a critical part of its context that follows from the kind of processes that enable public participation some
from defining its purpose to implementing the outcome is a major objective in this process. Such process will contribute to the development of more socially and environmentally responsive nano artifacts.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Denis Loveridge and Penny Street, and the Emerald Group Publishing, for their permission to use significant extracts from their paper‘Inclusive foresight'in‘Foresight:
the Futur process, Second International Conference on Technology foresight Tokyo, 27 28,february 2003. 3 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight:
& Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 There is increasing recognition that innovation emergence is a nonlinear process,
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
and stimulate a process of reflexive anticipation through controlled speculation based on exploring the underlying dynamics of emergence.
the ever-increasing complexity delays the process even more. Whilst for nanomedicine and bionanotechnology the clamour for tests and rapid certification hampers technological progress
The process provides a means for the creation of rich, context aware and plausible scenarios, which are accepted as legitimate and controlled speculations by participants of Constructive TA workshops.
Karnøe, Path creation as a process of mindful deviation, in: R. Garud, P. Karnøe (Eds.
highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known.
However as a result of the critical and systemic assessment of the process the*Corresponding author. Email: ozcan. saritas@mbs. ac. uk ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online 2009 Taylor & francis DOI:
as a result of the factors associated with the novelty of the ideas/controversies involved in the process,
Amunicipal foresight activity in Lundal is described to illustrate how an image for young people was created to endow them to be represented as stakeholders in the process.
It also reports on the process design and what policy developments have taken place after to the publication of foresight results.
and technology was formulated by Ben Martin as‘the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future of science, technology,
In some cases only industry representatives are included in the process but usually foresight involves a cross-societal discussion of needs, possibilities and priority-setting.
and how various forces influence this process. An innovation system can be defined as‘the elements and relationships,
2) to guide the direction of the search process among users and suppliers of technology (i e. to influence the direction in which actors employ their resources);(
gives probably unintentionally the impression that he understands foresight as a rational-analytical process, but the idea of the rational decision has been challenged for decades by decision theorists (Lindblom 1959;
Foresight practitioners (process consultants or core groups) play a major role in these processes, feeding results to decision-makers in charge of implementing the choices.
Mintzberg and colleagues label this‘strategy formulation as a process of negotiation'(Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 1998.
foresight practitioners (process consultants or core groups) and formal processes play relatively minor roles. Foresight methods preferred under this approach focus on key actors and their viewpoints, for example stakeholder analyses and Delphi studies.
The focus is less on priority-setting as a result of a foresight process and more on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing by the various actors during the process;
Interviewees were typically central council members, civil servants from relevant governmental entities, process and other external consultannts industry representatives and representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOS;
The development of this plan was not a formal, structured process, but consisted of three main phases:(
A significant amount of the interactions of these actors, including the decisions on how to advance in the process,
During the process a parallel discussion took place about a new measure to be employed in the council's funding function.
From the beginning of the process it was clear for many of those involved that the Strategy plan would be simpler than the previous 5-year plan (1998 2002),
and politician-targeted format was taken late in the process, early in 2002. The Research Agency played, in collaboration with the council, an important role in the definition of this communication format.
such as the Natural science Research council, received broad input from many different actors during the process of strategy development.
or predetermined process for developing Strategy development of strategy is a muddling-through process, and decisions Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 928 P. D. Andersen
and information functions) Energy Authority System operators (PSO actors) Consultants Other actors involved in the process Scientists Communication consultants Ministry of Science
descriptions of areas of strategy effort Analysis of areas (present state and actor views) Hearings Roadmaps (as follow-up) Duration of the process 15 months Approximately 18 months Legitimization
Not least the research council case could have benefited from a more formal and structured process. This would have improved the transparency of the process.
Especially, it is not clear what process led from the 45 position papers to the first drafts of the strategy plan.
Our study indicates that the impact of foresight exercises on strategic decisions in research councils and programmes can be improved
the process needs to include decision-makers at the national policy level government, politicians and key civil servants at least if implementing the results is important.
but the process should also be designed to include thoughts about the‘policy toolbox'in the process itself.
It is important in foresight processes to distinguish more clearly between process elements of analyses and process elements of decisions based on the analyses.
but the process could also benefit from just getting inspiration from formulation of Delphi statements.
assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological forecasting and Social Change 73: 761 77. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 932 P. D. Andersen and M. Borup Gibbons, M.,C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott,
from an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53.
highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known.
structural priorities enter‘through the back door'later in the process. However, the type of priorities desired is not the only factor to consider
and therefore involves a process with similar challenges to those just described. This is often the moment
should somehow be engaged in priority-setting processes. 4. Outline of FNR Foresight FNR Foresight has been delivered as a two phase process (FNR 2006, 2007a,
to open up the process to genuinely new perspectives; to avoid shorttermmism to collect necessary background data
and to ensure its use in the process; to minimise participants merely using the exercise to defend predefined territory;
to identify and mobilise champions to drive the process forward and to help deliver on foresight's findings;
Moreover, since the MCHER's intentions emerged after the process had got underway the exercise blueprint had to be adapted on a number of occasions.
This process led to the selection and reformulation of the research topics into‘candidates'for national research priorities.
but with so little time to work with, they decided to rely upon a single deliberative forum the Exploratory Workshop (EWS) near the end of the process to validate the domain rankings derived from analysis of the online survey. 12 This was always going to be problematic as it left too much to be achieved in a single one-day
Indeed, it would be fair to say that there was a questionable commitment to a deliberative and discursive Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 944 F. Glod et al. process,
perhaps with too little appreciation of the process benefits associated with foresight. Instead, the focus was solely upon the identification of priorities in as quick a time as possible.
Accordingly, a second phase of the exercise was instigated with a stronger deliberative process. This involved further thematic group meetings, a change of consultants,
the existence of one (or few) dominant actors influenced the process right from the outset (Thorsteinsdottir 2000.
first, there may be impacts from the process alone, which means they can conceivably appear before an exercise produces its findings;
'second, there was something of a lack of ownership of the priorities on the part of the MCHER no doubt because of the fact that the process was organised
The process did result however, in the categorisation of the priorities into two classes‘essential'and‘priority'domains, where the latter constitutes the more important class
. While the whole process was delayed by the late ministerial intervention, the FNR was, in parallel, developing a new clearly defined strategy in order to sharpen its impact on the Luxembourg research landscape.
Besides the identified priorities, the exercise in itself has produced associated process benefits for example, in terms of networking between participants
Second, it is clear that a forward-looking process like foresight needs to be underpinned by sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'data, e g. publication data, statistics on the national R&d environment, reports on the state of economy, environment or society
A further tension appeared in discussions of who should be involved in the process. Some particiipant particularly those who were already critical of the performance of the public research centres believed that the exercise was flawed by relying so heavily upon the ideas and visions of existing researchers.
In addition, a series of young researchers'workshops were held earlier in the process, but these were judged to have been largely a failure,
This process undoubtedly had a major impact on policy; in fact, several of the recommendations of the process were translated immediately into policy decisions,
others are planned to be implemented in the years to Come in spite of this apparent success, a more critical and systematic assessment of the process shows that the apparent short-term success of the process seems to come at the cost of limited medium-to long-term impact, associated with a low degree of novelty and the avoidance of controversy.
The impact assessment is based on a framework that focuses on three key functions of foresight in relation to policy making:
Moreover, evidence can be given of process mechanisms that have been conducive to the generation of rather conservative outcomes.
After introducing the impact assessment framework and the general process design, objectives and results of the Viennese innovation policy foresight and strategy process and the different impact dimensions will be analysed
The aim was to develop, in a participatory process, a comprehensive strategic framework as well as concrete proposals for*Corresponding author.
The core process was conducted between autumn 2006 and autumn 2007. At its end stood indeed a number of concrete measures to be taken,
as well as a perspective on future challennge and key areas for action that had been developed in the context of a participatory process.
However, in this paper, we would like to take a more systematic look at the impacts the process already has had
First, we introduce the impact assessment framework (Section 2). Then the main features of the process design (Section 3)
and the objectives and results of the process (Section 4) will be described, including a brief overview of the state of their implementation.
given the fact that the process ended only in 2007. However other medium-and longer-term issues can be discussed on the grounds of the process design
and its key characteristtics The concluding section will synthesise some of the most interesting insights that could be gained from the experience of the project. 2. Framework for the impact assessment of foresight processes1 2. 1. Changing insights into processes of innovation and policy making
Initially, the prevailing technocratic and linear process models of policy making (e g. in terms of formulation implementation evaluatiio phases) were replaced by cycle models,
These so-called‘process benefits'are regarded often as more important than the actual substantive (or tangible) outputs like reports and websites. 2 We can also observe an increasing interest in foresight activities that aim at supporting strategy formation both at the collective level and at the level of individual organisations.
but let us now turn first to the process itself. 3. Process design and implementation Vienna is the key centre for science and research in Austria as well as in the wider central European area to
therefore to initiate a process of strategic dialogue, bringing the growing number of diverse actors together in an open and self-critical debate.
when there was not even a first discussion Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:10 03 december 2014 958 K. M. Weber et al. about setting up a broader participatory process on research
the suggestion of launching a participatory foresight process as part of the research programme was rejected by the representatives of the City of Vienna in the management team of the programme.
and from (high-tech) business contributed to the process. The discussion was intended to develop a comprehensive strategy
Figure 1 shows the course of the described process. Inspired by the preparatory research, four core themes were identified at the beginning of the process on
which experts panels focused their work (see Figure 1):(1) RTI in business;(2) Research priorities and knowledge transfer;(
-policy in Vienna Panel report Opening Final event Figure 1. Process overview‘Wien denkt Zukunft'.
It gave the key policy actors a clear and visible place in the process thus reducing the risk of counterproductive interference.
between panel work and broad participation The participatory nature of the strategic process is demonstrated by involving more than hundred stakeholders from various areas in the panel work,
but also by the three public events that were organised at the beginning, at mid-term and at the end of the process in order to gather further input from a broad range of stakeholders.
The process started with a kickoff event(‘opening session')in the City hall with prominent proponents from politics,
but interactive tools were made available to offer the public an opportunity to contribute to the process with own ideas and proposals throughout the whole period (www. wiendenktzukunft. at).
First, the strategy process was regarded as a process by which the City ofviennawanted to find and make explicit its own strategic position within CENTROPE;
it was meant not yet as joint process of all CENTROPE partner regions. Second, it turned out to be rather difficult to identify the corresponding counterparts on the other side of the border.
With the regional research and innovation policy bodies being still in a process of emergence, several Viennese organisations were not able to tell with whom they would cooperate on joint actions.
and objectives for optimising the process of research and innovation with the help of RTI policy measures as available to the City of Vienna and embedded in the other policy levels (national and European) exerting an influence on the research and innovation scene
R&d subsidies, selective subsidies complementary to national subsidies), through acceleration of the transfer process (selective measures such as licensing initiatives, venture capital),
therti process‘Wien denkt Zukunft'identified five key fields for action on which the City of Vienna will concentrate its future RTI policy (see Figure 2):(1) Human resources
challenges and measures identified during the strategic process‘Wien denkt Zukunft, 'several concrete proposals for new projects or initiatives were developed in the five fields of action.
In the medium term, a monitoring process will also be implemented to follow the process towards achieving the strategic objectives as well as the progress of the individual initiatives.
and it is the firm intention to maintain the momentum of the participatory process by consolidating some of the communication channels that had been established in the context of the strategy process. 5. Impacts of the process
the experience of the process lends itself also to some more speculative observations regarding the medium-to long-term impacts of the foresight process. 5. 1. Immediate,
A major process benefit must be seen in the panel process itself which for the first time ever brought several of the actors,
However, as the participatory process was not following a strictly speaking forward-looking methodology (e g. scenario development, road mapping, etc.
it would go too far to speak of a broader diffusion of foresight skills as a result of the process.
The short-term counselling effects of the process were dependent on the level of interaction and networking that could be achieved in the course of the process.
In particular in the context of panel meetings and inter-panel meeting, it was necessary to explain
it is justified certainly to assess the impacts of the process positively in the short term. 5. 2. Intermediate,
medium-term impacts While it may be too early to assess the sustainability of the medium-term impacts that have become apparent 18 months after the end of the process,
While the process can be interpreted as a first step of joint policy learning, it will be one of the great challenges of the following years
whether the process as such will be a one-off activity or whether it will turn into a more regular process of strategy development and update, based on a monitoring of actions and context.
Overall, some elements of the strategy have been defined in such a way that the momentum will be kept for at least the next two or three years.
whether the process of strategic dialogue and policy learning can be turned into a sustainable activity or not,
Giving an assessment of longer-term impacts is difficult after just a year since the completion of the process.
One of the reasons for that success must be seen in the close linkages between those implementing the process and the responsible political decision makers.
For the first time, a communication process was implemented that brought research and innovation policy to the forefront of policy attention and that brought together representatives from most relevant policy areas.
As part of the process a jointly developed view of the main future objectives, challenges and key areas of action was agreed upon, combining elements of a joint vision.
First of all, the degree of novelty and creativity that was enabled by the design of the process was limited.
As a consequence, some of the initiatives that were put forward in the process were not really new,
both within local government and beyond (e g. innovationorieente procurement), were addressed in the process, but not given much prominence in the final strategy.
Finally, the largely inward-looking nature of the process, focusing very much on the scope for action by the local government
the overall process looks also more straightforward than it actually was. In fact, it was a lucky coincidence that the foresight process‘Wien denkt Zukunft'could draw on a comprehensive analytical basis provided by the research programme‘Systems Research in the Urban area
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process. Technology analysis & Strategic management 20: 369 87. City of Vienna. 2007a.
The nature of the innovative process. In Technical change and economic theory, ed. G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete, 221 38.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011