| Finnsight (51) |  |
| Finnsight 2015 (13) | |
| Finnsight (51) | |
| Finnsight 2015 (13) | |
8 november 2009,987 1001 Axes of balance in foresight reflections from Finnsight 20151 Ahti Saloa*,Ville Brummera and Totti Könnöläb asystems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University
We also describe the policy context and methodological support of Finnsight: specifically, we report how challenges arising from the tight schedule were addressed through the process design and
In this paper, we describe Finnsight 2015 (henceforth Finnsight for brevity), the national foresight exercise of the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes),
In our analysis, we discuss the policy context, management structure, methodological execution and key results of Finnsight.
and examine Finnsight in view of axes of balance that are arguably helpful in the planning of foresight exercises The methodological novelties of Finnsight are highlighted,
Section 2 outlines the policy context of Finnsight. Section 3 describes the methodological design, execution and main results of Finnsight and reports subsequent policy developments in the R&i system.
Section 4 examines Finnsight in view of four axes of balance and Section 5 concludes. 2. Finnsight in context In comparison with many other countries,
Finland has had an active and varied foresight scene, characterised by numerous activities that have been initiated by several key actors of the R&i system (see, e g.
Kaivo-oja, Marttinen, and Varelius 2002; Andersen et al. 2007. For examplle the Ministry of Trade and Industry has facilitated a so-called Foresight Forum (Könnölä, Brummer, and Salo 2007;
and legitimacy. 3. Process design and implementation 3. 1. Early preparations and management structures The initial preparations of Finnsight were started in early 2005 at a time
and the project manager of Finnsight. 3. 2. Foresight panels and phases of the foresight process The delineation of foresight panels was an iterative process where the Core group explored some alternative rationales for choosing panel titles, even in view of international experiences,
Because Finnsight was a foresight process of two funding agencies with different but complemenntar roles in the R&i system,
(i) they were able and willing to contribute to Finnsight and (ii) they could attend the two initial meetings.
The following key concepts and templates were employed in Finnsight: A driving force was defined as an event
2) Because Finnsight was a comprehensive exercise, it was necessary to ensure that no unintennde omissions would arise due to possible misperceptions about
At the first of these meetings, the President of the Academy of Finland and the General Director of Tekes presented the objectives of Finnsight to the panel chairmen who could pose questions of clarification
Finnsight received quite a bit of media attention, as evidenced by the large number of related articles in professional magazines, for instance.
or at least informed by Finnsight. In 2006, the STPC6 referred to Finnsight in its comprehensive report
which contained numerous proposals towards the development of the Finnish research and innovation system (STPC 2006).
Also, in the same month when the results of Finnsight were published, the STPC took steps towards the establishment of Strategic Centres for Science,
Although the establishment of these centres cannot be attributed to Finnsight, the results of Finnsight were published at an opportune moment for the development of the strategic research plans for these centres.
Also, some Finnsight panellists have made contributions to the establishmeen of these centres, which has created informal links between Finnsight and the centres.
Indeed, although the tight schedule of Finnsight was a challenge for the process design, this schedule was justified
nevertheless well by the need to ensure that the results would be made available when needed.
Within the two funding agencies, the Academy of Finland and Tekes Finnsight has served to inform their respective strategies.
In view of citations, Finnsight has served also as a source of information for various regional and organisational strategy processes in Finland.
It has aroused also international interest, considering that references to Finnsight reports have been made in documents published in Japan,
South korea and Canada and by the European commission. 8 One of the objectives of Finnsight was that it should encourage other actors of the R&i system to initiate foresight activities.
Here, it is noteworthy that Sitra, the Finnish innovation Fund, launched a So-called future Forum already at the time
when Finnsight was running. This forum was organised as a panel-centric process which in contrast to Finnsight, focused on somewhat more general questions of societal well-being and economic policy.
The activities of this forum and Finnsight were loosely coordinated; but not formal links were established (e g. in the sense that the results of the Future Forum would have depended on those of Finnsight.
Furthermore, in 2007 the Ministry of Trade and Industry started a process towards the establisshin a National Innovation strategy,
with the aim of paving the way for measures that the broadening scope of innovation policies would call for.
thus complemented those of Finnsight which purposely did not address structural questions. Building on the National Innovation strategy, the Governmeen has produced its Report on Innovation policy
Axes of balance in Finnsight Although formal evaluation of Finnsight has been carried out, the panellists were asked
and 88%thought that Finnsight will be important to the development of the Finnish R&i system.
As instruments of strategic policy intelligence (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), foresight exerciise such as Finnsight must respond to implicit
We therefore reflect on Finnsight along four design attributes (see also Könnölä et al. 2009) that are concerned with (1) instrumental vs informative use of foresight results;(
Along this axis, it is noteworthy that the Finnsight reports were published in June 2006 when the Government took decisions towards the implementation of a national strategy in which the establishment of Strategic Centres of Science,
the broader processes of using foresight results were not part of Finnsight which was framed emphatically as a foresight project that would produce informational results,
For instance, Finnsight synthesised consensual information about overarchiin developments that were relevant to many organisations in the R&i system (e g. universities, industrial federations, private enterprises.
Finnsight was unequivocally characterised by exclusive stakeholder engagement. This was partly because the panel approach, together with the tight schedule,
Along this attribute, Finnsight was closer to the consensual approach. To some extent, this was
In contrast, autonomous management refers to more openennde processes that are intermediated by the foresight co-ordinators (cf. the Core group in Finnsight) who facilitate relatively autonomous participant-led activities in the work of expert panels or other approaches (Salo
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:11 03 december 2014 Axes of balance in foresight 999 In Finnsight,
the partial autonomy that was given to the chairmen also served to empower them. 5. Discussion We conclude with a few methodologically oriented observations on Finnsight.
in terms of its methodological approach, Finnsight was unique thanks to the extensive combination of internet-based questionnaires and facilitated workshops.
In hindsight, the development of novel methodological approaches in Finnsight most notably the definition of dedicated units of analysis (driving forces, focus areas of competences) and the extensive deployment of internet-based tools for engaging the panel
Summary available from<http://www. aka. fi/Tiedostot/Tiedostot/Julkaisut/Finnsight 2015 en. pdf>,last accessed 1 june 2009.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011