The challenge of joining forces to develop more robust future-oriented support to decision making has been addressed in the series of International Seville FTA Conference organized by the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, one of the Joint research Centers
The rising importance of FTA is reflected in the interest for the Third International Seville FTA Conference.
and illustrates its potential virtues through an application to urban water management planning in a Swiss region.
From Germany we have Cuhls et al.''s account of The BMBF Foresight process. This well designed process breaks new ground in being concerned explicitly with enabling foresight as a sustainability asset for Germany's status as a R&d-innovation leader with specific elements also aimed at four innovative targets:
new R&d domains; crosscutting opportunities; new fields for strategic partnerships; and priorities for innovation policy. As well, the interplay between foresight and policy is defined further and elaborated,
To conclude this special issue we welcome the column From My Perspective of the Founder and Editor-In-chief of this journal and one of the key participants of the FTA 2008 Seville Conference, Professor Harold A. Linstone.
Impacts and implications for policy and decision making The 2008 FTA International Seville Conference. Online source:
http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2008/intro. html (2009-07-30). 2 F. Scapolo, M. Rader, A Porter, Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:
Totti Könnölä1 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC-European commission, Edificio Expo, C/Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain Corresponding author.
totti. konnola@ec. europa. eu. Jack Smith Defence RD, Ottawa, Canada Annele Eerola VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland 1
Previous researchers have identified a number of consequences of radical innovation for the poorly prepared firm or country:
, A. Klinke A j. Markard A m. Maurer b, A. Ruef a a Department Innovation research in Utility Sectors at The swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Switzerland
b Department Urban Water management Research at Eawag, Switzerland c Institute of environmental Engineering at ETH Zurich, Switzerland d Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems
at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI, Germany e Technology and Society Unit of The swiss Federal Institute of Materials Science and Technology (Empa
Switzerland a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history:
the Regional infrastructure foresight method (RIF) and illustrates its potential virtues through an application to urban water management planning in a Swiss region (Kiesental.
Regional foresight Strategic planning Participation Infrastructure 1. Infrastructure planning and foresight In OECD countries, most infrastructure sectors such as electricity supply, water supply and sanitation were constructed over the 20th century by implementing a narrow
P o box 611, CH 8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland. Tel.:++41 44 823 56 73; fax:++41 44 823 53 75.
We will present empirical evidence to support our claims from the experiences of implementing the RIF method in The swiss sanitation sector.
Section 4 presents the results from the application of RIF in the Kiesental region in Switzerland.
They are particularly strong in OECD countries where infrastructure networks have been established since decades. In the social science literature, the couplings have been described as socio-technical regimes.
For almost one hundred years in industrialized countries, infrastructure 1151 E. Störmer et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 organizations have been optimizing to guarantee the provision of homogeneous and affordable services.
Land use transportation scenario planning projects have been carried out since the late 1980s in the US 37. In particular metropolitan transportation has moved from a supply-side focus siting facilities to meet projected demands toward a more 1152 E. Störmer et al./
and tested in a transdisciplinary research project that empirically focused on The swiss urban water management sector. Following the model of action research 56,
we want to illustrate the individual steps of the procedure by presenting experiences gained in a specific pilot case in The swiss sanitation sector. 4. 1. Strategic planning in The swiss sanitation sector The swiss sanitation sector can be considered a success
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 Based on a national analysis of The swiss sanitation system 69 and a call for participation in innovative strategic planning processes,
Two further case studies implementing the RIF approach were carried out in Switzerland: one in a rural area with an urgent need for investment in an old treatment plant.
and the catchment connected to the sanitation system across the board in Germany, a solution that had not seriously been taken into account before
In this paper, we argued repeatedly that infrastructure sectors represent a special case for strategic decision making, particularly in the case of OECD countries.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 Acknowledgements The project Regional infrastructure foresight was funded by The swiss National science Foundation within the National research Program 54 Sustainable development of the Built Environment.
) 25 33.25 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2 3)( 2003) 93 111.26 F. Berkhout
lessons from sustainability foresight in German utility sectors, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (9)( 2008) 1360 1372.31 A w. Müller, Strategic foresight Prozesse strategischer Trend-und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Druckerei Zentrum, 2008.32
Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.45 I. Chatrie, J. Rachidie, AGORA 2020 Transport, housing, urbanism and risk, in:
Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.46 H. Thenint, L. Lengrand, Démarche Prospective Transport 2050 For a better French
Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.47 H. J. van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, Strategies for European
Overview and Interpretative Framework, European Science and Technology observatory (ESTO), Paris, 2001.57 I. Miles, Appraisal of Alternative methods and Procedures for Producing Regional foresight, EU Kommission, Brüssel, 2002.58 R. Popper,
Eckhard Störmer is a project leader at the Social science Research Department Cirus (innovation research in utility sectors) at The swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag.
Willi Gujer is a professor for urban water management at The swiss Federal Institute of technology Zurich and a member of the directorate of Eawag.
Harald Hiessl is head of the Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI and the deputy of this Institute.
Hans Kastenholz is a senior researcher at the Technology and Society unit of The swiss Federal Institute of Materials Science and Technology (Empa.
Andreas Klinke is a group leader for governance of infrastructures at Cirus at Eawag and a lecturer at The swiss Federal Institute of technology Zurich.
and is a lecturer at Swiss Federal Institute of technology Zurich. Annette Ruef is a scientific researcher at Cirus at Eawag and led the case study Kiesental. 1162 E. Störmer et al./
A systematic and Fig. 2. A systemic framework for methods 10.1 For instance, the TA studies carried out by the US Office of Technology (OTA) in 1974 1995 primarily served to inform Congress
and scenario methods in a proactive risk assessment of telecommunication and electric power infrastructures was conducted in an EU funded project Integrated Risk Reduction of Information-based Infrastructure Systems (IRRIIS,
and in the Nordic countries is carried out at VTT, namely the Nordic Energy Research Climate and Energy systems:
A generic model of the risk assessment procedure, applicable within the Nordic countries, will initially be framed.
, Foresight in Nordic countries, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),
EFMN European foresight monitoring Network, 2009, Available at http://www. foresight-network. eu/files/reports/efmn mapping 2007. pdf (Read July 8th 2009.
http://reports. eea. europa. eu/GH-07-97-595-EN-C2/en/riskindex. html (read June 12th 2008.
, International organisation for Standardization, Switzerland, 1999.19 International organization for Standardization (ISO), Risk management vocabulary guidelines for use in standards, ISO Guide, vol. 73, International organisation for Standardization, Switzerland, 2002.20
Risk analysis of Technological Systems, Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.21 Center for Chemical process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2nd Ed. AICHE, New york, USA, 1992
1999.42 JRC and IPTS FOR-LEARN On-line Foresight guide in http://forlearn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/guide/4 methodology/framework. htm (read May 28th 2009).
and the creation of credible indices of progress across countries, companies and groups with common assumptions to measure progress. 3. Reducing the domain of the unknowable It is hard to imagine the consequences of a new breakthrough before it occurs.
She is working as research assistant at Vienna University and as teaching assistant at California State university Dominguez Hills.
Finland is among the countries improving her position in worldwide performance comparisons since the late 1990s and reached leading nations in early 2000s.
Fromthe start TEK included in the barometer both a comparative study of reference countries, based on indicators of past development,
The reference group used in the first three implementation rounds consisted of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, The netherlands, Sweden,
in order to obtain a weighted index figure that shows the compared countries'ratings in terms of their techno-scientific competence.
In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B
and innovation performance of the nation. 3. Results of technology barometer 3. 1. Indicator-based comparison Statistical indicators collected from the eight countries through OECD
The barometer is used to calculate an overall ranking list for the countries analyzed. A closer look into the contents of the various sub-indicators provides interesting and useful information.
In the barometer report the sub-indicators are weighted equally for each country. However, should one want to set different priorities to some sub-indicators,
In the first three implementation rounds of technology barometer all reference group countries appear to have specific profiles of their own with strong characteristic features.
When assessing societies by information society indicators the Nordic countries particularly Finland and Sweden excel (Fig. 2). This is partly explained by vigorous investments in the development of intellectual capital.
the Nordic countries led by Sweden, retain their strong positions albeit with smaller margins, and followed by UK.
Scoring well in this section correlates strongly with the country's rating in widely used indicators of material wealth,
which at least partly is due to the country's unique social structure. According to the indicators of sustainable development Sweden, Denmark and The netherlands proved to be leading of the rated economies followed by Finland.
The significant mutual differences in the profiles of compared countries are definitely calling for a detailed analysis of the underlying causes,
7. The synthesis paints a picture of the country's progress in each indicator of two recent technology barometers.
In Fig. 3 the indicators depicting the country's longstanding above-average and further strengthening position are located on the upper right.
Fig. 2. Proportional ratings of the reference group countries. 1181 T. Loikkanen et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 272, were 2nd year students sitting for their matriculation examination.
and to allow later comparisons between different countries and surveys. The exact questions and formulations used can be found in the full barometer report 7. The purpose of the survey is to cast light onto the respondents'valuations regarding technology, perception about current state of affairs,
According to the results, the Finnish politicians are consistently more optimistic than professional engineers or company executives about the country's techno-economic development.
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
b German Federal Ministry for Research and Education, BMBF, Germany c Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering, Germany d Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history:
the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) launched a new foresight process which aimed at four specific targets.
The German Foresight process of the BMBF delivers results on different levels: broader future fields as well as single future topics.
others are just more indirectly filtered into the innovation system of the specific sectors in the country.
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
in order to sustainably safeguard Germany's status as a research and education location. The process started with four objectives
. of Technology policy, the Manufuture Secretariat Germany of the German Verband deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbauer (VDMA) supported the approach.
the German BMBF Foresight process addressed all these dimensions, albeit with different emphases and in different stages with a new combination of methods.
The process was considered to be the major approach of a German ministry in science and technology foresight.
Topics, in which BMBF or German research institutions were already very active at that point in time were labelled as‘golden
An online survey among experts from the German innovation landscape was performed in September 2008 in order to get broader assessment on the topics,
Nevertheless, this conference marked the beginning of the integration of the topics that were identified into the German innovation system and into BMBF.
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,
Expert discussions and interviews, also in the first wave of the Monitoring Panel interviews confirmed that the following thematic fields are of relevance for Germany:
In order to save time, no Delphi survey like in some of the previous German foresight activities was planned 16,17.
and gathered international and German experts with experience in implementing new or crosscutting issues. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss
or companies in other countries dealing with crosscutting issues and future topics with a time horizon of 10 to 15 years and beyond?
in 2009, general elections will be held in Germany. Until now, all German foresight processes ran into election times 19 which made it difficult to continue with the implementation preparations as intended.
and from foresight studies 22 27 and took into account knowledge from 15 years of foresight in Germany and internationally 4, 5, 6, 17,21, 28 31.
References 1 Forlearn, http://forlearn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/guide/1 why-foresight/functions. htm, access:
. Cuhls, N. Ludewig, Introduction to futur the German Research Dialogue about the Futur process, in:
‘Futur the German Research Dialogue',Research Evaluation, vol. 13,2004, pp. 143 153,3. 15 M. J. Bardecki, Participant's Response to the Delphi method:
Technologie (Federal Ministry for Research and Technology, BMFT (Ed.),Deutscher Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (German Delphi Report on the Development
Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, EUE 20137 EN, IPTS Technical Report Series, Brussels, 2001.28 K. Cuhls, Foresight in Germany, in:
Kerstin Cuhls is coordinator of the business area Foresight and Futures research in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
She manages the consortium that runs the BMBF Foresight process for the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education.
Germany. She is a jurist since 2003 in BMBF, and since 2004 in the Department of Research Analysis, Research Communication and Science Coordination.
Walter Ganz is director and member of the Leading Circle of the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO) in Stuttgart, Germany.
Philine Warnke is scientific project manager in the Competence Center Innovation and Technology management and Foresight at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research in Karlsruhe, Germany.
and the participants of the 3rd International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis which took place in October 2008 for useful discussions and comments.
axel. volkery@eea. europa. eu (A. Volkery. 1 See for more information the website: www. efmn. org. 2 See for more information the website:
and is the only parliamentary committee specifically dedicated to general future concerns in a member country of the European union,
In the next phase of our project work, we aim at delivering a sample of focused country case studies for selected member countries of the European union to analyse
in various countries and for European union Institutions. She is a member of the Global Agenda Council on Strategic foresight of the World Economic Forum. 1207 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207
'and were based on US experience of the Delphi method. As a result, there are two general shapes to Foresight studies that flow from early decisions about their procedures and management structure.
CBI, Institute ofdirectors, Chambers of Commerce and their counterparts in countries other than theuk. The essence ought to be to make it possible for anyone who wishes to take part to do so
which ran in Germany from 2001 to 2005, was the biggest departure from convention and was designed to broaden participation through allowing the shape of the study to evolve 2 as participation through the Internet reveals issues of importance.
this is why the evolutionary principle adopted in the German FUTUR programme is important. Public institutions already play an important role as programme sponsors.
The influence of the EU's Code of conduct (the Code hereafter) for nanoscience nano-technology and nano artifacts is a further matter shaping the future situation surrounding the nano-field.
and Street 3 but much remains to be done capitalising wherever possible on the experience built up in the German Futur programme.
in Germany: the Futur process, Second International Conference on Technology foresight Tokyo, 27 28,february 2003. 3 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight:
robinson@emerging technologies. eu. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2009.07.015 Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Technological forecasting
The normative motivation is set down in the EU Action plan and leads to instrumentalist approaches being used
This was one vision of the future proposed by a number of codes of conduct tabled in the December 2007 EU meeting.
where researchers were anticipating that the EU responsible development code may affect funding..The codes are particularly enabling for medical devices,
Government official Nanotechnology promises to revolutionise all industry sectors, paper production could seriously be enhanced through nanotechnology and as a small country,
and regulatory concerns begin to emerge in many countries as calls for further investigation Lock in becomes more visible as selectors wish to coordinate action:
Douglas K. R. Robinson obtained his Undergraduate and Masters degree in Physics and Space science and Technology at the University of Leicester (UK), Universität Siegen (Germany) and International Space University in Strasbourg (France.
8 november 2009,915 916 EDITORIAL Impacts and implications of future-oriented technology analysis for policy and decision making*Most of the papers in this special issue were presented at the Third International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) that took place in October 2008.
and immediate impacts of a recently completed two-year national technology foresight exercise conducted in Luxembourg. The paper covers the evolution of the foresight exercise over its two-year life span,
the paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight,
and strategy process conducted in the city of Vienna. The paper gives a comprehensive review of the foresight and the assessment of its impacts on policy.
and that would provide inputs for the country's national strategy, foster collaboration between the two main funding agencies the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes) and promote foresight and innovation activities at large.
In some countries (for example, Norway) research councils have played a key role in initiating and sponsoring foresight activities as a strategic input to funding activities.
In other countries foresight exercises have been carried out on the national level by entities (private or public) other than research councils and related organisations.*
Hence, many countries have initiated technology foresight exercises and other activities for prioritising strategic research. Sociologists have noted this development,
Examplle of strategy and priority-setting processes in public research can be found from Spain, UK, Norway, The netherlands, France and Denmark in a report from the European project MUSCIPOLI (Siune 2001.
Following foresight exercises in many countries during the 1990s, there now seems to be a new wave of research
and in some countries also make up less than funding from private sources. Most European countrrie have research councils, research programmes or similar institutions,
but their structure varies significantly (EU DG Research 2005). It is difficult to obtain comparable statistics for research council funding activities on the scale of the European union (EU) or countries of the Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD). In Denmark,
approximately 20 25%of public research is funded through research councils and national research programmes (Forskningsstyrelsen 2003). Both national research councils and research programmes often channel money to new and important emerging research areas and topics.
In Proceedings from the EU US Scientific Seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods, 13 14 may, Seville, Spain.
EU DG Research. 2005. Final Report. Examining the design of national research programmes. Prepared by Optima Ltd, VDI/VDE-Innovation and Technik Gmbh, EC Contract Ref.
PP-CT-M-2004-0004. Forskningsstyrelsen. 2003. Tal om forskning 2003 statistik. Copenhagen: Forskningsstyrelsen. Gavigan, J. P.,F. Scapolo, M. Keenan,
http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country:
the case of Luxembourg Frank Glod a, Carlo Duprel a & Michael Keenan b a Fonds national de la recherche, 6 rue Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
, B. P. 1777, L-1017, Luxembourg b Manchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK Published online:
Frank Glod, Carlo Duprel & Michael Keenan (2009) Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country:
the case of Luxembourg, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 933-951, DOI: 10.1080/09537320903262298 To link to this article:
8 november 2009,933 951 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg Frank Gloda*,Carlo Duprela and Michael Keenanb afonds national de la recherche, 6 rue Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, B
. P. 1777, L-1017, Luxembourg; bmanchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK This paper sets out to review the conduct and immediate impacts of a two-year national technollog foresight exercise
(2006 2007) conducted in one of Europe's smallest and wealthiest countries, Luxembourg. The country's small size brings into sharp viewmany of the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities.
These tensions include the ability (or otherwise) to underpin the foresight process with sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'knowledge (including national statistics,
international benchmarking data, and future-oriented‘intelligence'),'the organisation of dialogic spaces that are hijacked not solely'by special interests
The exercise was organised by the FNR (Fonds national de la recherche or National research Fund), the only research council in Luxembourg.
The paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight,
Luxembourg; research system 1. Introduction In 2005, Luxembourg began to embark upon a‘national'technology foresight exercise, with the primary aim of identifying newresearch domains for the National research Fund (FNR) to support*Corresponding author.
Email: frank. glod@fnr. lu ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online 2009 Taylor & francis DOI:
1 As with other small countries, Luxembourg has limited public resources devoted to research and has a small (and young) public research base.
Thus, the challenge for Luxembourg lies not in distributing limited funds among its existing science community.
In an opening section, the general contours of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in Luxembourg are traced, with a view to contextualising the FNR Foresight experience.
while a final section draws some summary conclusions and highlights lessons for future foresight practice. 2. STI Policy in Luxembourg Before the 1980s,
Luxembourg lacked a public science, technology and innovation infrastructure. R&d carried out in Luxembourg was largely the preserve of the private sector particularly the steel industry and even today,
a key feature of the research landscape remains the dominant role played by the private sector.
However, with increased recognition of the role of research and innovation in contributing towards the future development of the country,
the Luxembourg government decided in 1999 to increase the level of publicly funded research. Accordingly, the government went on to develop a focused STI policy,
the Ministry of Culture, Higher education and Research (MCHER) as the key policy centre with respect to Luxembourg research;
These developments were followed up in 2003 by the establishment of the University of Luxembourg (UL.
These unprecedented budget increases possibly place Luxembourg in a unique position among its partners in Europe,
although the level of gross expenditure on r&d (GERD) in Luxembourg at 1. 25%of GDP in 2006 still remains one of the lowest in the Europeea Union (EU). Afuller reviewof the evolution of the Luxembourg research system is offered by Meyer
but other initiatives (see Box 1) are meant also to contribute to upgrading Luxembourg science, as well as to improving its governance.
and technology priority setting in a small country 935 Expenditure on Public research 0 20 000 000 40 000 000 60 000 000 80 000 000 100
The University of Luxembourg was established in 2003 and implies a shift of paradigm, as it was considered always to be a national strategic advantage that Luxembourg students had to go to foreign countries to study.
The University has been created by merging three existing higher education institutes and its remit has been shifted from an almost purely educational role to one that has a stronger focus on research.
The City of Science is an initiative of the MCHER to regroup the University of Luxembourg and the Public research Centres on a single new site in the south of Luxembourg near the town of Esch-sur-Alzette.
The Centre is to be set up in cooperation between three US institutions, three Luxembourg public research centres,
and the University of Luxembourg. Research activities will mainly cover the topic of molecular diagnostics with a 5-year budget of¤140 million.
the FNR serves as Luxembourg's national funding agency in supporting the development of research competences in topics of national interest Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 936 F. Glod et al. through multi
In this way, FNR funding is intended to shift the Luxembourg research system towards conducting more leading-edge science
So the FNR has faced the challenge of identifying‘appropriate'programmes that will not only attract sufficient high-quality proposals from Luxembourg scientists
but will also steer them to conduct more leading-edge research in topic areas that are likely to be important for Luxembourg's future socioeconnomi development.
and Luxembourg has been no exception. In the section that follows, we discuss some of the generic dilemmas that characterise prioritisation processes before examining how these played out in the Luxembourg context. 3. Generic priority-setting dilemmas Priority setting is, more often than not,
an implicit activity that permeates all policymaking and implementation. An important attraction of technology foresight has been its promise to make such processes more explicit, and, by extension
and technology priority setting in a small country 937 have been intended! A further related consideration concerns the need to maintain‘variety'in the S&t system,
But in small countries, this is particularly difficult to achieve across the board as many S&t areas lack sufficient‘critical mass'to keep pace with all the latest developments.
when priority setting is a country's ability to make the most of this potential.
'since future investments in research infrastructures or future changes in policies/regulations, for example, can make a significant difference to a country's ability to exploit a particular S&t thematic area.
Luxembourg, where in theory, it is possible to engage almost everyone in the prioritisation proceess Rather,
the major limit in places like Luxembourg is the breadth and depth of local expertiis to make prioritisation assessments.
b) where the first phase consisted largely of defining the current position of the Luxembourg research landscape,
In the first part of Phase 1 an initial‘diagnostic'step focused on mapping the Luxembourg research landscape.
and a series of face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, including senior researchers within Luxembourg and abroad, as well as companies and public administrators.
These were focused all upon identifying future research directions for Luxembourg. In parallel, key trends and thematic research priorities were collected from 13 countries.
The latter was combined with the findings of interviews to generate an initial‘long-list'of topics to be tested'by the research community.
5 but their full assessment was undertaken through an online questionnaire survey of much of the Luxembourg research landscape (around 300 participants), Online Questionnaire Young Res.
Workshop Exploratory Workshop‘Long list'of research domains Initial assessment Selection of broad research fields Stakeholder workshops No formal input General Challenges for Luxembourg Expert workshops per field SWOT Analysis Initial
assessment of domains Future trends Luxembourg context Research priorities candidates Conclusion & recommendations Phase 2: Setting Context/Identifying Priorities Data collection Bibliometrics Interviews International research trends Evaluation of FNR programmes Mapping of Lux.
and technology priority setting in a small country 939 where respondents were asked to rate research domains against a battery of‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'criteria.
Phase 2 of the exercise was devoted to establishing possible priorities for public research in Luxembourg. For this purpose
As a starting point for assessing research domains, representatives from Luxembourg society, business and research were invited to the Stakeholderworkshop with the aim of identifying the main challenges facing Luxembourg over the coming decade.
The subsequent series of thematic field workshops aimed to (redefine or review7 the research domains identified in Phase 1,
but for the most part, we have sought to deliberately focus upon those that we feel have been more unique to Luxembourg.
but that are developed still weakly in Luxembourg. The international group of experts also emphasised the need to balance any discussion of thematic priorities with a strong consideration of structural priorities.
‘research domains in the public sector with short-term and/or long-term socioeconomic interest for Luxembourg society'.
To assist the development of outstanding centres of science and technology excellence in Luxembourg; To ensure the specialisation of public research centre facilities into centres with a limited number of specific areas of high level expertise;
and technology priority setting in a small country 941 research was not to fall under identified research priorities.
Rather, all research domains presently investigated in Luxembourg would continue to benefit from at least current levels of financial support
which presented them as the research priorities for Luxembourg to the MCHER. An even more fundamental problem lay with the widening of the exercise's scope to include identification of‘national'priorities
it is necessary to take into account recurring discussions in Luxembourg on the need to identify Table 2. National research priorities in the shape of research areas and research domains.
Information security and trust management Telecommunications and multimedia Sustainable resource Managing sustainable development management in Understanding ecosystems and biodiversity Luxembourg Sustainable management of water resources Sustainable
by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 943 so-called‘competence niches'
i e. areas of potential economic success which may only be achieved through a knowledge base developed in Luxembourg.
This expectation is informed by the so-called‘sovereignty niches'areas where the traditional wealth of Luxembourg has been built owing to geographical (steel) or legislative (banking industry) specificities,
but it is influenced also by the country's small size and a belief that this implies the need for specialisatiio
despite the small size of Luxembourg, it was apparent that many people in the same thematic areas did not know one another.
and analysis. Similar shortcomings have also been noted by Meyer 2008 who comments that Luxembourg's‘current science policy appears to be almost too ambitious,..
'the interests of the participants were more widely spread (reflecting the reality of Luxembourg's research in that area)
or micro-countries that there is‘compacting'of policy levels together with the‘many hats syndrome
contrary to previous findings (Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008), this did not make coordination easier in Luxembourg
and technology priority setting in a small country 945 manner instead, their implementation depends upon enrolment and mobilisation of advocaac coalitions around emergent agendas.
6. 1. Sense-making and the construction of political ownership As the main S&t policy body in Luxembourg,
developing a new clearly defined strategy in order to sharpen its impact on the Luxembourg research landscape.
The exercise also helped the FNR to better comprehend the Luxembourg STI environment while strongly highlighhtin the dearth of statistics and analyses.
Overall, the successful conduct of the Foresight exercise and its implementation, together with all the other ongoing structural changes, indicate a growing maturity of the Luxembourg STI environment, particularly around public governance.
and technology priority setting in a small country 947 6. 4. Impacts on the private sector It is unclear
the experiences of Luxembourg are likely to be all too familiar, but the small size of Luxembourg also brings into sharp view many of the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities.
Some of these are summarised below. 7. 1. Setting the scope of prioritisation Restricting the exercise to the identification of only thematic priorities was a mistake,
Discussion around this point tended to get tied up with the idea of identifying new‘competence niches'for Luxembourg to exploit.
owing to a lack of common vision among the various stakeholders on the position and contribution of S&t to Luxembourg's socioeconomic development. 7. 2. Setting the‘granularity'of priorities The priorities identified by the exercise were set at a level
first, the already-mentioned lack of vision of the role of S&t in Luxembourg's development meant that some of the criteria were used rather blindly.
This was problematic in the Luxembourg setting, as much national data was missing while international benchmarking was limited of use owing to Luxembourg's small size.
This therefore made assessment against some of the criteria very difficult and probably unreliable. 15 7. 4. Who prioritises?
and technology priority setting in a small country 949 MCHER would not have been suited better to perform the study itself.
Thus, conducting foresight in smaller countries is neither easier nor more difficult than in larger countries.
Notes on contributors Frank Glod is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg
Carlo Duprel is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg and was involved in the conduct of the FNR Foresight study.
many small countries have also set up and run exercises. Notable examples from Europe include Ireland, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovenia and the Nordic countries.
The EC has sponsored also pilot foresight exercises in Malta, Cyprus and Estonia as part of the eforesee project (see Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008).
and the Seychelles as pilot countries (see Wehrmeyer et al. 2004). 2.‘Competence niches'refer to areas of potential economic success that develop from the establishment of an exceptionally strong knowledge base in a particular domain. 3. As the GDP of Luxembourg has increased by 50%(from¤22 to 33.1 billion) between 2000 and 2006,
these are sizeable budget increases for public research. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 950 F. Glod et al. 4. The use of the term‘in-house'can refer to actors beyond the officials of a ministry
and their methodology had to be adapted to the degree of progress made up to that point. 8. Other elements included the review analysis by the OECD on Luxembourg's public research apparatus, the multiannnua development programmes of the public research centres and the University of Luxembourg,
Technology foresight in smaller countries. In The handbook of technology foresight, eds. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena-Harper, M. Keenan,
Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche (unpublished. FNR. 2007a. FNR Foresight Final Report. National priorities for public research and other findings.
Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche. FNR. 2007b. FNR Foresight Final Report. Thinking for the future today.
Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche. Georghiou, L, . and M. Keenan. 2006. Evaluating national technology foresight exercises.
Luxembourg Foresight a‘standard'exercise in a‘peculiar'setting? Paper presented at the Second FTA Conference, 28 29 september, Sevilla, Spain.
Keenan, M. 2003. Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience. Journal of Forecasting 22: 129 60.
and technology priority setting in a small country 951 Meyer, M. 2008. The dynamics of science in a small country:
the case of Luxembourg. Science and Public policy 35, no. 5: 361 71. OECD. 1991. Choosing priorities in science and technology.
Paris: OECD. OECD. 2007. Reviews of innovation policy: Luxembourg. Paris: OECD. Thorsteinsdottir, H. 2000. Public sector research in small countries:
does size matter? Science and Public policy 27, no. 6: 433 42. Wehrmeyer, W.,J. Chenoweth, A. Clayton, M. Fernandez-Lopez,
and K. Lum. 2004. Foresighting and technology choice in small developing countries. In Paper presented at the EU US Seminar:
New technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, 13 14 may, Sevilla, Spain. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011