Rather, it was driven a process by technology experts. The small section of the IWGN workshop report on the social impact of nanotechnology contains a vision on the future
Historical analysis indicates that the process of drawing the boundary so as to exclude Drexler's ideas was connected closely with controversies around the question,
the technology assessment activities and the vision building process served to link disperse organizations and research fields
summarizing the process and results of the forecasting exercises for nanotechnology in general and for various subfields of nanotechnology,
The vision-building process of 2010 served as an instrument to pool and coordinate FTA ACTIVITIES among government departments, agencies, and research communities.
K. Cuhls, A. Beyer-Kutzner, W. Ganz, P. Warnke, The methodology combination of a national foresight process in Germany, Technol.
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.60 U. Felt, M. Fochler, Machineries for making publics:
For decades the dominant definition of innovation as new products and processes that are introduced to the market combined with the common understanding of companies as the main actors in this process was questioned hardly ever.
Fig. 7 shows the results of one assessment in an early stage of the process.
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 the scenario building activity is looking for a consensus building process among the participants
and is therefore closing the phase of divergence at a quite early stage of the process.
In a classical scenario building process participants'contributions are channelled through the scenario building framework. This can be more or less rigorous depending on the approach.
and stimulating diverse experts to participate in the process. Diverse signals were considered in the project
Reflecting the process ofweak signal collection it can be noted thatwhen looking for signals the inclusion of diverse experts is crucial.
the feedback received from the numerous participants during the INFU process as well as from audiences of INFU presentations in several different communities3 allows for somemethodological conclusions.
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.2 R. Miller, Futures literacy:
and more by a process of geological accretion where the structures and policy styles of earlier decades continue, perhaps with some diminution,
able to serve a wide array of decisionmakkin process. Indeed it is this paradoxical‘‘short-termism''of FTA its capacity to meet pressing needs that may be most symptomatic of a context that is rich not only on the practical side but also the theoretical.
and the Danish research 2015 process, from 2008, which focus on priority settings for strategic research. 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
future-intelligence gathering and medium-to-long-term vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions'.
and the Research2015 process, from 2008. In both cases, the impacts have been significant and largely measurable in new legislation and budget allocations.
the government launched a process that was to meet the Grand challenge of increasing globalisation. The aim was to meet this challenge by developing a vision
Every four years, such a process should result in a catalogue of important themes for strategic research.
This initiative provided the background for the Research2015 process, which was initiated by a passage in the Parliament in November 2006 as part of the national budget negotiations for 2007.
The evaluation of the process revealed that the material from the OECD horizon scan was used only to a very limited degree.
other factors, particularly the Parliament's energy agreement, have contributed significantly to the prioritisation process. The key actors in this phase were the five negotiators from each of the five parties that were behind the Globalisation Strategy.
or 5 6%.An overview of the whole process is presented in Table 3. The evaluation of the Research2015 process may be considered a fifth phase.
The evaluation focused on both the research process and the result of the process 33.
The process fulfilled its two major objectives it formed an improved basis for prioritisation of strategic research,
What is not clear is how the political priorities for strategic research would have appeared without the Research2015 process. 2 The total governmental R&d expenditures consist of two parts:
Nevertheless, the Globalisation Council's process included both expertiseorieente foresight methods (expert panels, expert discussion papers), evidence-oriented foresight methods (indicators and fact reports) and interaction-oriented foresight methods
The Research2015 process included foresight methods such as horizon scanning, expert panels, user panels, dialogue meetings, conferences and workshops.
When during the Research2015 process, the expert group worked to reduce the number of themes for strategic research
Furthermore, new and deviating ideas from actors who had conflicting interests were introduced during the process,
The two processes did include expertise-and evidence-oriented elements (such as the OECD horizontal scan in the Research2015 process or the fact sheets in the Globalisation Council process),
Thus, indirectly a creativity dimension is included in the process. The advantages of using negotiation in Danish settings are obvious.
This participative negotiation process, which involves seminars and workshops, provides an obvious opportunity to create a synergy effect due to the creative processes that are shaped by bringing together experiences and ideas from many different interest domains.
Phase Process Results Involvement 1: Mapping OECD horizontal scanning Public hearing among all interested citizens Input from ministries 125 trends and challenges 432 suggestions 90 suggestions In principle, everybody interested in strategic research 2:
of the process Reduction to 31 themes for strategic research Expert group (8 persons) User panel (53 persons) 3:
We proceeded from policy makers'increasingly common requirement that in their content and process, national foresight exercises must be integrated better into the actual national policy making processes.
but also in the factors that affect the potential impact on the policy process, we look at the perceived levers and barriers as well.
How are used the results in the strategic policy process, and in which phase (s) specifically? What, according to policy-makers, is added the value of using foresight methods in strategic policy processes?
a retrospective attitude may suggest a process more linear than it actually was focused), we especially on the consistencies between the document analyses and the in depth interviews.
both from a content perspective and from a process perspective. The two national studies show that civil servants are increasingly knowledgeable about futures research methods,
and process-driven motives for using the scenario analysis method in the different phases (see also the distinction between process-oriented and product-oriented development of scenarios 10).
the motive is said to be driven process. Examples of process-driven motives are: stimulating interdepartmental dialogue gathering support for ideas and policies developing a common cognitive frame of reference (a common ground of understanding)( see also 5, 11) Finally,
all motives have to do with learning about the future, at an individual and group level 13,14. 3. 3. How are used the results in the strategic policy process, in which phase?
The results of the cases made it clear that, at the local level, it is still difficult to connect the insights of a scenario exercise to different steps in a strategic policy process.
Scenario exercises themselves are seen mostly as a project, not as an ongoing strategic process. It appears to be a huge step for policy-makers at the local level to link scenario insights to the agendasetttin and policy preparation phases.
To a large extent, the added value of using the foresight method as perceived by policy-makers at the local level is processrelaated Local policy-makers indicated that they saw the inter-sectoral approach as one of the main process-related benefits
while local policy-makers are oriented more process. In addition, we discovered a kind of connection paradox at the national level.
For example, combining insights from a future analysis with the development of a policy vision and various strategies was seen as a sluggish process.
and scenario frameworks are suitable to the needs of the strategic policy process. For example policy-makers who are inexperienced in the use of foresight methods may find it difficult to decide which type of scenarios to develop/use
and facilitating the process of gaining support of policy-makers and politicians for the method and the results of the foresight process.
When this buy in happens too late in the process, there is less internal support, and policy-makers and politicians will not experience the added value of the scenario analysis.
the timing of the scenarios will be compared different to a situation where the motive is to test policies by means of scenarios (the latter will take place at a later stage in the policy process).
foresight studies work better when combined with policy processes rather than as a stand-alone process. Most local policy-makers indicated that the foresight process took more time than they initially expected.
the duration of the process does not appear to be a major issue. Initiating new foresight processes just before a new Minister
the organisational embeddedness and (subsequent) use is not a fully rational process and depends on other factors, some
because not drawing conclusions means that there is no connection between the foresight study and the policy development process.
process-oriented effects of using foresight methods were emphasised, while, at the national level, greater emphasis was placed on content-related issues.
There were also similarities with regard to the implementation of foresight studies and the use of foresight insights, for example the important success factors of leadership and confidence in the process.
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (2008) 369 387.26 J. Schoonenboom, Toekomstscenario's en beleid,(Scenarios and policies), Beleid en Maatschappij
At the same time, the process must be designed to cope with shifting objectives and stakeholders'expectations during the implementation phase (i e. the so-called responsiveness of the process) 13.
This means that relevant stakeholders should be involved in some form of dialogue (methods vary) across different stages of the process to share their views regarding achievements and their meaning,
while being adaptive both in terms of process (combine open and collective with closed and expert-driven stages) and results (different options for different audiences,
when they claim that an effective communication process with all stakeholders involved, including those in the initial phase of information collection,
and to all who are involved throughout the process 12. Furthermore, it is important to make sure that these aspects are integral to both the strategic and the operational aspects of the exercise
for instance, regarding the decision-making power of stakeholders due to the bottom-up aspects of the process. It is important
regional, and national systems that it is also important for the people making decisions to be involved in the process and feel ownership of its results.
The latter claims that foresight needs to go beyond the level of a collective process to that of individual actors'strategies.
Moreover, there is also the need to adapt the process and results to changes in the environment.
The basic idea is to add a process cycle to complement foresight with a phase of‘strategic counselling'.
as well as mutual learning so that the process could adapt to needs along the way. In this way the approach proposed would link the strategic goals of the Commission with the operational aspects of the process.
It would also ensure that a consensus among project partners and between these and the Commission would emerge along the way.
JRC-IPTS coordinated the entire process and supported four groups that involved all project partners in developing the four snapshots.
During a period of a month and a half a number of online tools were used for this process.
However, it may be far more relevant how the whole process created a systemic understanding and a common vision amongst the stakeholders taking part in the exercise.
and implementation of the project by bringing together the identification and discussion of intended impacts with efforts to define each operational step and question related to guiding the process.
Initial efforts to arrive at a systemic understanding of the process, when combined with both open consultations
It also enabled the process and results to be adaptable to changes such as evolving client needs (from a list of priorities for research collaboration feeding the framework programme).
In this context, the partner meetings were vital to adapt the process to the evolving client's needs and partners'expectations,
For instance, during the scenario building process, further clarification was needed, which required returning to previous discussions, clarifying decisions already taken and, most importantly,
The idea of embedding such modularity was adapted from another international exercise 29 where stakeholder participation was also based on the definition of explicit roles and responsibilities for the different phases of the process.
If this happens it may undermine the stakeholders'commitment to the process and the trustworthiness of the exercise at large 8. Hence,
even if the process as a whole may then exhibit more inertia. By considering the above features in the design phase it is easier to manage the process according to plan.
In the IMS2020 project such flexibility was obtained by encouraging partners to have embedded smaller meetings whenever workshops
Moreover, parallel group work with support from online tools was embedded in the process allowing the project to be kept within the planned schedule. 4. 3. Capacity to reconfigure international networks Table 2 below outlines how formal and informal
As mentioned, the scenario and vision building process required considerable behaviour and expectation management. In the first scenario building workshop a discussion of how scenarios could be deployed
Stakeholders Selection process Type of network Methods for engaging and informing Project partners Expertise Formal Face-to-face meetings, video/teleconference, Groove, email,
workshops, meetings) enabled flexibility in the overall process, such as the one mentioned for developing scenarios and a shared vision.
The development of scenarios, the vision building process and the final roadmaps included not only expectations, needs and viewpoints from the IMS region,
from an indicator to a network and process perspective, Technology analysis and Strategic management 13 (4)( 2001) 533 553.19 F. J. Contractor, P. Lorange (Eds.
Insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis and Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 1 232.24 T. Ko nno la, Innovation roadmap:
and underlines that Foresight needs to go beyond the level of a collective process and get to the level of individual actors'strategies.
The contribution provides a process outline and examples of Adaptive foresight, including a critical assessment of its potentials
It also describes the major methodological challenges involved in the process. In the paper‘Regulatory foresight: methodologies and selected applications,'Blind illustrates three methodologies for performing Regulatory foresight.
For example, knowledge generated through the application of fta methods, FTA as a process of coproduuctio of stakeholder communities (i e. social capital),
In this paper we argue that this limitation is to an important extent due to the insufficient or even lacking introduction of the future and future anticipation as components into the user-driven knowledge creation process.
current or expected future users are involved rarely actively in this anticipatory process. An integrated approach towards Innovation Foresight is thus called for.
but are engaged actively in the process and share their‘future'experiences and aspirations in an interactive and iterative way.
and involving them continuously, beginning from the earliest phases and throughout the whole process. Contrary to traditional user research,
In this study, we therefore involved different types of users in an inclusive process to reflect on possible, probable and/or preferable‘TV experiences of the future (initial time horizon:
) 3. 2. 1. Methodological approach A multi-method approach was used to stimulate users'creative and imaginative potential in the IF process.
According to Sleeswijk Visser 30, the process of creating the probe material and of interacting with the users is maybe even more crucial than the completed probe itself:
this process helps to take the real user's life, thoughts and experiences into account,
users as well as other relevant stakeholders were involved in an inclusive and future-oriented process, based on a combination of traditional and more creative methods.
IF aims to enhance users'input to and their influence on the inclusive knowledge creation process.
with a focus on process improvements. Ultimately, PMS should enable businesses to build the necessary actions to reach its strategy and excel 19.
financial customer, internal business process, and learning and growth 10. These perspectives have outlined their objectives in measures, targets,
It does so by helping an organisation to better understand the process by which mission, vision, values,
Moreover, the scenario development process should become an important contribution to organisational learning 28. The third phase (cascading strategy into operational actions) was conceived based on the original structure of the BSC.
The process of cascading strategy is based on the definition of strategic objectives, measures, targets and initiatives.
the mutual learning process between State and citizens'representatives enabled the development of shared decisions, which resulted in the design of more robust and consistent policies that were aligned with local needs.
it was possible to see that the institution was not able to shape a process to build a shared understanding of stakeholders'views as well as of risks, opportunities, system capabilities and dynamic changes.
At the same time, the city major, a key actor in the process, supported the initiative by developing employment opportunities for youngsters
when stating that foresight can be seen as a governance process, whereas 43 claim that this happens through shared
They affirm that networked learning enables a process of innovation and institutional adaptation that is participatory, interactive and in
(thus supporting phases 3 and 4). Enabling spaces like this through foresight embedded within the proposed system to formalise this collective process of mutual learning and experimentation would enable increased communication across the value chain.
this process is critical to increase legitimacy, ownership and transparency of decisions. Hence embedding FTA within the proposed system would enable firms to steer solutions to possible challenges through joint-up decision making and implementation processes.
Ultimately, this process shall lead to increased legitimacy, ownership and transparency of decisions across the value chain.
, the process of creating a new product, service or system 24, has long been considered a driving force behind economic growth 25.
and as inside-out and outside-in processes (see 40 for three open innovation process archetypes) where external knowledge is brought into the company
and performance. 2. A process model that guides the organization toward the envisioned future. 3. The ongoing innovation processes together constitute a transition path that leads the organization from the present to the future. 4. The inner component leadership
while ensuring that this future vision is aligned strategically with a sound process model that allows managing
and external trends could be identified. 4. 1. 2. Process model With regard to the process model different views emerged during the interviews.
and the external trend that ICT is becoming increasingly important in all business areas provided the foundation for this vision. 4. 2. 2. Process model The activities of the EICT itself can be interpreted as an innovation process model.
and higher education. 4. 3. 2. Process model In the innovation framework instruments for sharing, exchanging and developing knowledge were created,
To enhance transparency a formalized stage gate process was introduced in 2011. Since then, proposals for future activities have to meet a set of predefined criteria
and an annual selection process (quality assurance) add to the aforementioned foresight instruments innovation radar and best-practice benchmarking.
While the process model was adopted to integrate multiple parties as well, the program management from Rijkswaterstaat was focused more internally
and knowledge exchange. 2. Beneficiaries of networked foresight activities are the network partners within the predefined project settings. 3. For developing the process model,
and review process lead by the management team ensures continuous tracking and adjusting of the network's activities.
, the innovation radar, are used to provide the basis for the process model of the network especially
, the action lines (thematic fields) and the selection process, could be applied further to guide the transition path toward an open network that generates excellent research
(organizations) 3. 6 Technology transfer program & (&) Open (organizations) 3. 7 Innovation radar & (&) Open (organizations) 3. 8 Annual selection process (&) & Closed network
and should be used to develop a suitable process model toward an envisioned future of an innovation network.
When combining the differences in networked foresight with further research on collaboration in innovation at least two known‘process archetypes of open innovation'are observable in the cases:
, in terms of the CIM especially the image (s) of the future, the vision and the process model of the network.
and (2) to adjust the process models and eventually the transition path. Doing this with the networks'partners promises to sharpen the results by including additional perspectives
three core process archetypes, in: R&d Management Conference (RADMA), Lisboan, Portugal, 2004.41 C. Jasner, Walk of pain, Mckinsey Wissen 17 (2006) 44 49.42 W. G. Dyer
threats) and scorecard analyses (Sripaipan, 2006), analytical hierarchy process, data envelopment analysis, multicriteria decision analyses Combinations Scenario-simulation (gaming),
and planned early in the process. This is not something to be discovered along the way. Establish explicit expectations and measures to assess performance.
The analysis leads to specific process recommendatiion for national horizon scannings related to how data are gathered, analysed, synthesised and used.
and their possiibl impacts throughout all stages of the process in order to improve our understanding of possible futurres The limits of current methodologies
A systematic process, which is designed to give a comprehensive picture of relevant future issues for an actor (or a set of actors),
and Netherlland scans (see Table 2). A number of issues could be placed under several of these new subcategorries These issues were noted during the process of comparison.
For the OECD DASTI horizon scan it was clear from the beginning that the results of the scan would be used as an important input for the process of priorittisin new research themes for the Danish fouryeea cycle of the research funding councils
In addition to this we may assume that the process which contained many experts and stakehollder will also have indirect impacts among this group.
to clarify the picture of the most relevant relationnship in a shared process (with the involvement of decision-makers) on a much earlier moment than usual
The STEEPV acronym and process: a clarificattion ideas in progress, paper 29, Manchester, UK: PREST, University of Manchester.
In other words, the methodological details were adjusste in‘real-time'depending on the knowledge generated in the course of the process.
The overall process was based on five main stages, which seemed best suited to deal with the uncertainties which characterise the sector and its evolution.
The use of the scenario technique turned out to be essenttial as was the mix of both open participatory and restricted process elements to tackle sensitive policy issues.
and working on the German National foresight Process. He has coordiinate a project on EPIS and several studies on ambient intelligence for the European commission.
A different level of participation was embedded at each stage of the above process. The sector analysis was carried out by the project team through literatuur review and expert interviews.
An impact assessment was possible (and necessaary to a varying extent at every stage of the process:
Sector analysis The first step in our process is the analysis of the sector in terms of the actors, business models, technollog trends, societal developments,
the structure of the creative content sector and the fundamental transformation process it is undergoinng of particular importance is the question of how new,
Design of scenarios for the future The sector analysis carried out as the first step of the process
European policy-makers who were involved in the various workshops throughout the process, and at the end of the process to assess the results of the exercise.
The overall objective of the FTA had been to provide the policy-making process with strategic intelligence by taking a prospective view towards the evolution of ICT and
It also made it possible to adapt successsfull to changing requirements and insights duriin the process,
As to the adequacy of the methodology for shapiin a vision of the creative content sector as such, we can conclude that the process helped raise key issues and controversies relevant to the sector as depicted by the four scenarios.
As such, the process is, in part, responsible for making these differences expliici and bringing them to the surface.
and adjusted in the course of the process, reach their limits and point to the need for new approaches for exploring the futuur of such fast-changing areas.
innovations implemented and legislation adopted Table 3. Success factors influencing the political role of participatory technology assessment Societal Institutional Process properties Good timing
and performing institutions Precise definition of political goals Perceived fairness of the process Orientation of the product
and practical implementation Involvement of political actors in the process Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 35 asked what they thought were the best contemporary foresight organizations,
What is the foresight project selection process? How has evolved the foresight program over time? Do you have a foresight wish list?
This wide variety of goals makes the process of definnin narrow goals and success measures quite complicated.
and professional levels of organizations and industrial domains affected by the foresight were able to be involved in the process,
The role of PTA in the policy making process, EUROPTA Final Report. Copenhagen: Danish Board of Technology.
-and price-driven process, this focus seems to have shifted over the years (Rosted, 2006), influenced by the altered role of the technology user as an important stakeholder.
User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 53 of the diffusion theory has to do with its proinnovvatio bias and the assumed linearity of the innovaatio and adoption process.
In current definitions,‘user-driven innovation'refers to the process of collecting a particular type of informattio about the user:
this still contrasts sharply with the In current definitions, user-driven innovation refers to the process of collecting a particular type of information about the user:
Methodological framework The common methodological framework covered three main research stages in the innovationdevellopmen process (Lievens and Pierson, 2006.
One of the major challenges at this stage was not only to successfully involve users in this early part of the process,
which is typical for this stage of the process. Further and deeper analysis is certainly necessary
2008), this paper limits itself to a discussion of the research process and the way the abovementioned challenges were tackled.
the need for continnuou interaction with the user and the need for mechanisms to integrate the knowledge that is gatherre in the increasingly multidisciplinary developmeen process.
Shariin user experiences in the product innovation process: Particippator design needs participatory communication. Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (1), 35 45.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011