germany

Germany

Asia-pacific (26)
Austria (131)
Brazil (5)
China (196)
Country (511)
Eu (475)
Germany (222)
Luxembourg (118)
Russia (105)
Spain (297)
Switzerland (95)
Usa (120)

and later on adopted by Germany and other countries are subsumed often under the‘foresight'heading. For our purposes,

in Germany in the context of the Futur process 13, and in Hungary 14.466 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 influenced by its results.

Futur the German research dialogue, Res. Eval. 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.14 PREST, Evaluation of the Hungarian technology foresight programme (TEP), Report of an International Panel, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2004.15 R. Slaughter, A new framework

the last one involves the deepest mode of collaboration as the 18 partners from eight countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden,

Methodologies and selected applications Knut Blind Regulation and Innovation Competence Center Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management

D-10623 Berlin, Germany Received 28 september 2006; received in revised form 19 october 2007; accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract This paper on regulatory foresight addresses approaches which allow future fields for regulatory action to be identified.

D-10623 Berlin, Germany. Tel.:++49 30 314 76638,49 160 3676114 (Mob.;fax:++49 30 314 76628.

In some European countries, like Germany there has been a longer tradition of regulatory impact assessments in the context of technology assessment 6. A rather new

For Germany, he was even able to show in time series models that the dynamics in patent applications is reflected in the output of standardisation documents 21.

We start with some studies performed in Germany or German-speaking countries. In a survey conducted in 1998 among companies of 12 manufacturing sectors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 2 Nevertheless,

the results of the surveys conducted within the framework of the Community Innovation Survey also contain information about regulations and standards as obstacles for innovation and sometimes their role as source for information.

A systematic and strategic approach to develop standards for the service sector was initiated in Germany in the year 2000 with a large project Service Standards for Global Markets funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research 34.

data formats and customer interaction are most important for the surveyed German service companies. This result reveals indirectly that there are strong expectations that those standards will obviously have a high positive impact to improve the former aspects.

of Germany's nanotechnology community Besides the examples reported above, we present another example of a survey,

Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.

which was applied in Germany 44. Regulation was included in a set of possible obstacles, like lack of capital or human resources, for the development of science and technology.

In the following Sixth Japanese and Second German Delphi studies 45,46, all obstacle categories were changed into policy measures

In the first German Delphi survey, the field communication was characterised by the most negative values regarding the impact of the regulatory framework3 because of the former monopolistic structures in the telecommunication markets and the massive public intervention in the radio

but the liberalisation, especially of the communication markets in Germany, is reflected in the low need to readjust the regulatory framework in comparison to other fields,

In addition recycling of computers can be 4 Based on the results of the First German Delphi study 44, the Fifth Japanese Delphi study 45,

However, the sound experiences of the Japanese and German Delphi studies underline that foresight methodologies can be applied for the identification and setting priorities of future areas of regulation and therefore also of standardisation

A first approach was launched in Germany by a study to identify future themes for standardisation based on the negative experiences in the case of nanotechnology,

in which Germany did not leverage its excellent position in research and development into a leading position in setting the necessary framework conditions for future research and market introduction via standardisation 39.

in the interface between nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany: explanations and solutions, EURAS Proceedings 2006, Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz, Aachen, 2006, pp. 61 70.40 T. J. Gordon, O. Helmer, Report on a Long-range Forecasting

but also in the fields of standards, regulation and intellectual property rights on behalf of the European commission and Ministries in Germany and other countries. 516 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516

significance, satisfaction and suggestions for further research perspectives from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Strateg. Change 14 (2005) 1 13.16 R. Phaal, C. J. P. Farrukh, D. R. Probert, Technology roadmapping A planning framework for evolution and revolution, Technol.

Douglas K. R. Robinson obtained his undergraduate and master's degree in Physics and Space S&t at the University of Leicester (UK) and Universität Siegen (Germany.

‘Futur the German research dialogue',Research Evaluation 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.3 R. Barre, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:

As for the second one, suffice it to say that in some bigger EU countries e g. in Germany

does not reflect their significance. 18 The well-known examples are the institutes belonging to Max Planck Gesellschaft (Germany), CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France), CNR (Consiglio

in the future, Foresight, OST, London, 1999.41 B. Alesi, S. Bürger, B. Kehm, U. Teichler, Bachelor and Master Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany, Federal Ministry

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,

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

and the catchment connected to the sanitation system across the board in Germany, a solution that had not seriously been taken into account before

) 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

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.

The reference group used in the first three implementation rounds consisted of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, The netherlands, Sweden,

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Lessons for sustainability foresight in German utility sectors. Technological forecasting & Social Change 75, no. 9: 1360 72.

More Information (in German) on the foresight and strategy process is available at: http://www. wiendenktzukunft. at www. wiendenktzukunft. at/downloads/strategie lang. pdf www. wiendenktzukunft. at/downloads/strategie kurz. pdf An English summary is available at:

such as the‘Young Foresight'programme for schools in the UK, the German Futur project, and‘Jugend denkt Zukunft',a countrywide cooperation programme between German businesses and schools.

During several presentations of the project, the project leaders showed an illustration figuring predators fighting over the right to decide area planning in Germany's capital Berlin (Figure 2).‘Why the young people?'

Development and perspectives of foresight in Germany. Technikfolgenabschätzung 12, no. 2: 20 8. Cuhls, K,

futur the German research dialogue. Research Evaluation 13, no. 3: 143 53. Cunliffe, A. 2005.

Germany and United kingdom, see Havas 2003; Durand 2003; Cuhls 2003; Keenan 2003. This may have been

From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany. Journal of Forecasting 22, nos. 2 3: 93 111.

, Breslauer Straße 48,76139 Karlsruhe, Germany d CNAM, 292 rue Saint-martin, 75003 Paris, France e Dept of Science, Technology,

This holds especially true for the regulatory dimension concerning especially the gene diffusion from modified organisms. 9 This cognitive tension appears in the persistent scientific controversies regarding this subject that Germany's ban on Monsanto GM maize

Since then, six countries Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg have chosen to ban Monsanto MON 810 modified maize contradicting EU Commission position.

reflections from a hydrogen Foresight project, Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (3)( 2007) 259 265.39 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to Foresight processes new participative Foresight activities in Germany, Journal

as Jaspers et al. 16 discuss in the case of Germany's Future programme. FTA ACTIVITIES necessarily involve, in a very central position, engaging knowledgeable agents,

Germany. implementing FTA METHODS but also their benefits in enabling a better understanding of complex systems which interact in each situation and in defining effective policy responses.

10.1108/14636681211256071 Jens Schippl and Torsten Fleischer are both Senior researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of technology (KIT), Institute for Technology assessment and Systems analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Building on the work of the German Risk Commission (Risk Commission 2003), in the context of this paper risk is understood, in its economic/toxicological/engineering sciences definition,

. 36 40, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany Received 13 may 2004; received in revised form 30 september 2004;

Graue Reihe 36, European Academy Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany. 5 T. Fleischer, Technikgestaltung fu r mehr Nachhaltigkeit:

After serving as a project manager for several technology assessment studies for the Institute for Technology assessment and Systems analysis (ITAS) of Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany,

and the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament (TAB), he is currently heading the project group btechnology Assessment for Nanotechnologiesq at ITAS.

he worked as researcher at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Stuttgart. Between 1997 and 2002 he was a member of the scientific staff of the Europa ische Akademie Gmbh where he managed several TA-projects

Strategic dialogues for research policy making in Germany Frauke Lohr, Sebastian Hallensleben and Amina Beyer-Kutzner Abstract Purpose The mere generation of foresight results is not sufficient in itself to influence research policy.

This paper aims to present such a process(‘‘strategic dialogue'')and illustrate it with recent examples from Germany.

Keywords Foresight, Strategic dialogue, Research policy, Stakeholder alignment, Scenario planning, Germany, Innovation, Strategic planning, Governance, Management Paper type Case study 1. The challenge of transferring foresight results Through research policy,

Result, Frankfurt, Germany. Sebastian Hallensleben is based at Solysis Ltd, Burgess Hill, UK. Amina Beyer-Kutzner is based at BMBF, Berlin, Germany.

However, the mere generation of foresight results is not sufficient in itself, even if the foresight process was designed

we illustrate the process with three examples from Germany and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research related to transferring results from foresight

and similar strategy processes into research policy making and research infrastructure creation. 2. Lessons from earlier work The challenge of transferring foresight results into strategic planning is well known in a business context.

Specifically with respect to research policy development in Germany, Meister and Oldenburg (2008) argues that both foresight and subsequent transfer activities have to be constructed as dialogue processes involving all relevant stakeholders.

With his summary of the key results of foresight activities in Germany in the early part of the last decade, he also illustrates once more their wide-ranging and interdisciplinary nature and hence the need for an active and carefully designed transfer to research policy making.

Table I their relevance to strategic dialogues for transferring the results of foresight activities and similar strategy processes into research policy development. 3. The situation in Germany To support research policy development the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research

and they show the application of this dialogue approach in a range of different situations. 5. 1 Strategic dialogue to transfer results from the BMBF Foresight process Strategic dialogues were conducted, for example, for focus areas from the latest BMBF Foresight process (German Federal Ministry

In addition, contact with three other German federal ministries was established. To transfer the results of the focus area‘‘Produzierenkonsumieren 2. 0''into activities,

and for involving the public (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2010b). 5. 3 Strategic dialogue to develop a model for public private partnerships A third example of a successful strategic dialogue was the definition of a novel type of innovation cluster across academia and industry implemented as public private partnerships.

Through our work we have come to the conclusion that a carefully designed transfer of foresight results into research policy making would be beneficial in a wide range of situations, not just in Germany but also within the EU and internationally.

Experience from the German BMBF-Foresight process, ''paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, May 12-13, Seville.

In Delphi Austria, an analysis of the Japanese, German, French, British Delphi studies was conducted to separate

Shaper-Rinkel 13 analyses future-oriented governance of emerging technologies in the USA and in Germany,

She explores the role that different types of FTA played in the development of nanotechnology governance in the USA and in Germany.

In Germany, FTA was used mainly to shape 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.

In Germany, FTA is used mainly for addressing the future of existing areas of strength with FTA ACTIVITIES being governed by one ministry (BMBF),

in Germany the process is less coordinated and does not involve heterogeneous stakeholders nor make use of the knowledge gained in various FTA.

T in the way paved by the German philosopher of technology Hans Sachsse 18 almost three decades ago.

Sachsse (whose work was published most in German and has remained in a kind of limbo, probably obfuscated by the devolutionary epistemologyt developed by Karl Popper, with

This terminus was proposed first in 1777 by the German economist Johannes Beckman (in his opus beinleitung zur Technologie oder zur Kenntnis der Handwerke, Fabriken und Manufakturenq) as science

Research Dialogue in Germany E. Göll, Futur the Research Dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.

Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 63 E. Göll, Futur-the research dialogue in Germany, in:

In Germany FTA has mainly been used to shape and define research and innovation agendas of established science industry networks.

but rather on the longer-term interplay between the organizational settings in both countries and the future-oriented nanotechnology analysis. In countries such as the US and Germany, where FTA on nanotechnology were already underway in the late 1980s,

the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,

and development and Germany established its public funding program. Understandingwhat nanotechnology is and howit is governed requires first focusing on the governance processes associated with its development

The second set of national activities the paper analyzes is from Germany, where FTA was used mainly to shape

Examples of these participatory and future-oriented activities include consensus conferences in the US 24 and a consumer conference in Germany 25.

The US and Germany differ with regard to their commitment to national-level foresight activities (as a highly comprehensive form of FTA.

In contrast to the US, the German government has launched several technology foresight processes in the last decade 33,34.

and Germany The early history of nanotechnology as an emerging technology is heterogeneous. In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen

and disciplines. 3. 2. Germany FTA for addressing the future of existing areas of strength In Germany,

nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.

The nanotechnology related activities of BMBF, the main public agency in Germany in charge of promoting pre-commercial research and development,

At the onset of the German national nanotechnology initiative, officially started in the late 1990s by widely publicized funding programs for nanotechnology,

they received funding from other programs of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)( e g.,

In 2003 the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament conducted a broad technology assessment on nanotechnology 49.

Through the action plan, other federal ministries8 finally joined the German nanotechnology initiative more than fifteen years after the firstmonitoring and forecasting activitieswere conducted.

In summary, for over a decade, the German variety of FTA ACTIVITIES was governed mainly by one ministry (BMBF) and focused largely on science industry relations.

In contrast to the US, Germany lacks an organizational structure that brings together the expertise of the broad variety of ministries, agencies, stakeholders,

The German research system is characterized by its high level of institutional fragmentation 53 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,

FTA aimed mainly at assessing the potential of the field known today as nanotechnology. Several industrial countries established their first programs in that field in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

as evidenced by first reports in the US and Germany, which documented mutual visits and mutual screening activities in the 1990s.

but also in Germany, Sweden, and Russia to gather additional information on activities in those countries 5. In Germany, the report on the first forecast activities also documented international activities,

analyzing nanotechnology related activities in the US 6 . While the US NNI continued this international screening

the BMBF did not report similar activities. 4. 3. Governance structures Beside many parallel developments in the US and Germany,

In Germany, disparate sources of knowledge were pooled not a nano-specific organizational context was established not that could serve as an umbrella organization to promote cooperation among agencies

In Germany other ministries and government agencies have their own agendas with regard to the future governance of nanotechnology without being part of a common board where strategies are compared and aligned.

In Germany, early FTA ACTIVITIES also provided justification for a policy under consideration (symbolic function) and were used also for policy conceptualization,

Unlike in the US, the governance network in Germany is centralized around one ministry (the BMBF) lacking a continuously working governance structure to bring together the variety of actors involved in nano-related innovation processes.

Both in the US and Germany, actors conducting early FTA did not claim to have a broad impact on public policy,

while in Germany many different agendas were developed in parallel without a common strategy. Comparing these two countries, the main difference lies in the existence of an umbrella organization in the US that pools heterogeneous stakeholders

or dialogues organized by the German Nanokomission were involving increasingly other stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations and citizens.

The German nanotechnology policy in contrast, has no continuously operating nano-related inter-organizational setting;

Acknowledgements This paper builds on earlier research on the governance of nanotechnology in Germany funded by the German Research Foundation DFG and also on studies for an AIT funded project on the impact of foresight (Sufo Sustainable Foresight.

evidence from Germany, J. Technol. Transf. 34 (2009) 320 342.9 M. C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering:

Concepts and Practice, 2008, pp. 154 169.33 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2003) 93 111.34

K. Cuhls, A. Beyer-Kutzner, W. Ganz, P. Warnke, The methodology combination of a national foresight process in Germany, Technol.

Chang. 77 (2010) 1448 1456.48 A. Zweck, G. Bachmann, W. Luther, C. Ploetz, Nanotechnology in Germany:

Report and Recommendations of the German Federal government's Nanokommission for 2008,2008. 51 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, Responsible use of nanotechnologies:

report and recommendations of the German Nanokommission 2011, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.

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

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.

Germany Workshop with stakeholders of future innovation camps in Berlin 6. Ubiquitous Innovation (including dark sides) Rolandas Strazdas Professor,

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 and Belgium are marked with a dotted circle in the upper right quadrant of Fig. 1. Between these clusters is a Germanosphere cluster (Germany, Switzerland and Luxembourg),

In contrast, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, The netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Japan are mentioned as examples of CME.

Germany, The netherlands and Japan. In 1998, the Danish Board of Technology established an independent working group to analyse

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe and Karlsruhe Institute of technology, Karlsruhe, Germany Received 29 february 2008 Introduction The contributions included in this special issue build on material presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA

Attachment to the Secretariat of the German Bundestag's Enquete Commission on Technology assessment prior to the creation of the German Parliament's Office of Technology assessment (TAB),