Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design Toni Ahlqvist1,,*Ville Valovirta2 and Torsti Loikkanen2 1vtt Technical research Centre of Finland, Ita inen Pitka katu 4, Turku, P o box 106,20521 Turku, Finland 2vtt Technical research
Centre of Finland, Tekniikantie 2, P o box 1000,02044 VTT, Finland*Corresponding author. Email: toni. ahlqvist@vtt. fi The systemic characteristics of science, technology and innovation policies have been discussed much recently.
This paper presents innovation policy roadmapping (IPRM) as a methodologgica framework for linking R&d results to systemic policy contexts and to forward-looking policy design.
socio-technical transformation. 1. Introduction Since the 1960s, the results of R&d practices have increasinngl been approached as knowledge inputs in the construuctio of science and technology policies.
like the perspectives of users, societal regulation and markets, have become core parts of science, technology and, now, innovation policies.
Because of these developments, in the 2000s it has become more common to talk about systemicity in the context of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies.
The systemicity sets challenges not only to the researchers, developers and policy-makers, but also to the policy-making processes as such.
In Section 3 we Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 178 190 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs016 Advance Access published on 16 march 2012 The Author 2012.
like exploring future opportunities in order to set priorities for investment in science and innovation activities, reorienttin the science and innovation system, demonstrating the vitality of the science and innovation system, bringing new actors into the strategic debate,
and broadening the range of actors engaged in science and innovation policy. Weber et al. 2009: 955) argue that policy processes have gone through a conceptual shift in
which a linear model of policy-making has been replaced with a more learningbaase cyclical model. This observation means that policy-making is systemic in a double sense:
Transition management encounters environnmenta and innovation policy histories in Finland',Policy Sciences, 42: 409 27. Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. D. 2008)‘ Crafting strategy:
Kostoff, R. N. and Schaller, R. R. 2001)‘ Science and technoloog roadmaps',IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48: 132 43.
joint programming. 1. Introduction Science and scientists have crossed the national borders of individual states for many years.
Finally, it draws conclusions for foresight in transnational research programming. 2. Co-ordination of transnational programming The co-ordination of cross-national public research involves a set of challenges in bridging potentially Science and Public policy 39 (2012
Within the focus of problem-solving oriented research a second source of tensions relates to different viewpoints between scientists and policy-makers.
and scientists (see Table 1). A third set of tensions relates to the multi-disciplinary and multilevel complexity of societal challenges.
Gnamus (2009) proposes eight levels in internatioona science and technology (S&t) co-operation (see Fig. 1). This paper will focus on level four‘programme co-operation and co-ordination'.
and project levels (see Table 2). Table 1. Tensions in transnational research priority setting between science and policy-making, based on experiences with identification of joint programming initiatives.
Based on Seiser (2010) Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of science Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of policy-making Bottom-up Top-down More focus on scientific frontier Feeding
and researchers Different public financing and auditing mechanisms (vertical vs. horizontal grants, loans, tax reductions etc.
authorities and autonomous Mobility and exchange of scientists Programme cooperation and coordination Institutional cooperation Project cooperation Exchange of S&t information Innovation/knowledge clusters 2 3
Different funding modes Vertical co-ordination Co-ordination between local, regional and (international levels National researchers not keen to see more budget used for transnational projects Lack of alignment between policy-makers
and carefully planned workshoops 317 future-oriented research issues were proposed by researchers and assessed by researchers
and industrial leaders on the basis of different criteria. 26 Those issues that were evaluated favourably on the different criteria were prioritised for discussion in a series of four workshops.
and deepen collaborattio between European funding organisations in field of wood material science in order to coordinate use of research funds Ad hoc process to support joint programme preparation of Member States and
Programming Initiative Alignment of research systems Bottom up consultation process networrkin researchers and industrial leaders across borders.
engaging researchers and industrial leaders providing a wealth of informmatio for national funding agencies on their stakeholders'interest
by developing a framework for the field of wood material science, consisting of four research areas and 23 sub-areas.
answering the calls is expected to mobilise numerous researchers; the reviewers should be selected internationally from among the best existing experts;
For example, in Belgium thematic choices for research in universities are left to the researchers themselves,
The assessment criteria for researcher's were: novelty, tentative researcher's interest and description how the researcher would like to contribute to future projects on the issue.
The criteria for industry were: industrial relevance, possible time horizon for industrial use and need for collaboration at EU level. 27.
and for initiating new co-operations within the European research and innovaatio communities (with scientists from different disciplines and research areas, city representatives,
Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning',Science and Public policy, 39: 222 31. Lundvall, B.-A°.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation:
Science versus politics. A front-line report',presentation at the Joint Programming Conference, held Brussels, 18 9 october 2010.<
Sector 30a, Vashi, New Mumbai 400 705, India 6austrian Institute of technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, 1220 Vienna, Austria 7advisory Council for Science
Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 208 221 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs017 The Author 2012.
and researchers (Mendonc¸a et al. 2009) Emerging issues Beyond horizon scanning the concept of emerging issues is used also in the area of risk assessment (Marvin et al. 2009), in the field of environmental issues (Sutherland et al. 2010) and in organisations in their environmental scanning (Morrison 1992).
In the SESTI project an attempt was made to set up a wiki that specialised in collecting voluntary descriptions from many authors on new emerging issues for science and technology.
Database tools that are connected to search engines such as Google news Timeline, Google Insight, Web of Science, 9 or Gapminder10 are very helpful for this purpose.
conservation or science and policy (cf. Czaplicka-Kolarz et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2010; Sutherland et al. 2010;
scientists and other futurists consider future analysts to be their most valuable source for weak signals (Hiltunen 2008b).
Overall, micro-blogging is one of the social web tools that could change how science is perceived and how 214.
E. Amanatidou et al. scientists communicate about controversial topics in science. Today it is used only by a small minority.
For the scientists in the labs these developments cause many problems because:..the speed of communication is ahead of the sheer time needed to think
Provided by Thomson Reuters<http://thomsonreuters. com/products services/science/science products/a-z/web of science/>accessed 21 december 2011.10.
The cases of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning',Science Technology and Human Values, 35: 783 811.
Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning',Science and Public policy, 39: XXX XXX, in this special issue.
The Art and Science of Anticipating the Future'.'New york and London: Routledge. Mandavilli, A. 2011)‘ Trial by Twitter',Nature, 469/7330: 286 7. Marvin, H. J. P.,Kleter, G. A.,Frewer, L j.,Cope, S. et al.
Whitely, M. A.,Porter, J. D. and Fenske, R. H. eds) A Primer for New Institutional Researchers, pp. 86 99.
, J. and Rudd, M. 2011)‘ Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy',Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2: 238 47.
Political debate about ageing in The netherlands',Science and Public policy, 35: 575 83. Van dijk, T. A. 2002)‘ Political discourse and political cognitioon'In:
identifying common strategic choices and questions for knowledge',Science and Public policy, 37:7 18..(2010b)‘ Horizon scanning:
Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media, pp. 227 240. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer..( (2012)‘ Wild cards as future shakers and shapers'.
University School of Science, Department of mathematics and Systems analysis, PO BOX 11100,00076 Aalto, Finland 3eu DG JRC-IPTS, Seville, Spain;
Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 222 231 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs021 The Author 2012.
Methodological advances have been pursued, for instance, in the Framework programme 7 Blue sky Foresight projects on emerging issues that shape European science and technoloog (Amanatidou et al. 2012.
EC officials, researchers, nongovernmental organizzation and business representatives from all the thematic areas that were represented. Specifically, these experts were requested to generate additional issues
Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues',Science and Public policy, 39: 208 22. Anderson, W. 2005)‘ Wiring up Whitehall:
Ko nno la, T.,Haegeman, K. and Guy, K. 2012)‘ Embedding foresight in transnational research programming',Science and Public policy, 39: 191 207.
Linstone, H. 1999)‘ Complexity science: Implications for forecastting'Technological forecasting and Social Change, 62:79 90. Martin, B. and Johnston, R. 1999)‘ Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system:
Towards new systems of future-oriented technology analysis',Science and Public policy, 39: 153 66. Weick, K. 1995) Sensemaking in Organizations.
and needs-oriented approaches versus a science and technology push. Grand challenges are discussed at many levels, for instance, the EU, the regions, nations,
The idea fits well with the Fraunhofer mission, Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 232 244 doi:
sociologists and researchers from different disciplines tried to find more evidence for megatrends. They made use of different trend lines from historical data and identified longlasstin developments, sometimes in combinations of more than one line, with large impacts that were identified additionally.
Some researchers from different areas made use of these approaches and set‘megatrends'as a framework or a driver for their scenarios (Kolz et al. 2012 forthcoming.
Blind et al. 2001) to highlight topics that should be assessed in science and technology. Megatrends are used also as a part of the evaluation in market studies and analysis (Frost and Sullivan, 2010.
engineers and scientists that can be, in a slightly exaggerated way, formulated as‘Let's drive this interesting and fascinating technology further.
However, dedicated internal funding for each topic was not inherent in the process. 3. 3 Rationale for a new 2010 future-oriented process (demand-driven) The rationale of the Fraunhofer approach started with the assumption that there are obviously science
because within the Fraunhofer Society with its 60 institutes, there is a broad portfolio with a huge variety of scientific disciplines, applications and knowledge in general available.
This approach left the scientists enough freedom to find their own solutions. On the other hand, the often technically minded researchers are forced to think outside their normal boxes.
In this case, no complicated or sophisticated solution is sought, but rather projects with potentially high impacts on the societal questions of the future.
Involve the intellectual resources of many Fraunhofer scientists: include different people from Fraunhofer in the process
The evaluation panel consisted of senior Fraunhofer scientists and external experts. E5 million in funding for each challenge within the Future markets programme are to be spent (starting in 2011.
Normally, a researcher applies for a project with a proposal based on technology-oriented programmes. If his/her competence fits with the working programme,
he/she acts as a nucleus and invites other researchers to build a consortium in order to broaden the scientific approach.
A single researcher with one core competence is often not able to have an overview of the spectrum of alternative solutions.
which researchers from different disciplines discuss possible ways in which to obtain the most effective solution.
The connections and shared interests of the different researchers will lead to additional new ideas and maybe projects sponsored by other parties.
This is the strategy of the German government in science and technology fields, see also<http://www. bmbf. de>accessed 15 july 2011.
References Blind, K.,Cuhls, K. and Grupp, H. 2001)‘ Personal attitudes in the assessment of the future of science and technology:
New foresight on Science and Technology. Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, No. 13.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011