Regulatory foresight: 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 , Chair of Innovation Economics, VWS 2, Müller-Breslau-Str. 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. We follow a rather wide perception of regulation and include standards and standardisation as elements of the regulatory framework. The paper presents three methodologies appropriate for performing regulatory foresight. First, an approach is presented which makes use of science and technology indicators and enables the identification of possible fields which may cause challenges for the regulatory framework and the regulatory bodies. Second, survey approaches are displayed which enable regulatory bodies to identify future needs for regulations. Finally the usability of the Delphi methodology is discussed and results of a Delphi survey in the telecommunication area are presented. The paper concludes with a comparative analysis of the three methodological approaches regarding their effectiveness to conduct regulatory foresight. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Foresight; Regulation; Standards; Indicators; Delphi survey 1. Introduction 1. 1. Background In the last few years, the issue of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has become very attractive, in particular among European policy-makers. In contrast to the longer tradition of impact assessment of Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management, Chair of Innovation Economics, VWS 2, Müller-Breslau-Str. D-10623 Berlin, Germany. Tel.:++49 30 314 76638,49 160 3676114 (Mob.;fax:++49 30 314 76628. E-mail address: Knut. Blind@TU-Berlin. de. 0040-1625/$-see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.004 public activities in research and development, regulatory impact assessment is a policy evaluation mechanism which has a long tradition only in the USA 1. However, the United kingdom started with some cost-benefit analyses of regulations in the 1980s. Other European countries like Sweden or The netherlands followed in the mid 1990s. Among the OECD countries, regulatory impact assessment gained a certain momentum after the publication of the OECD report on best practices in impact assessment 2. The growing interest in RIA in other countries, especially in Europe 3 reflects interrellate developments emerging over the past few years 4. First, within a framework of tighter governmental budgets and stronger international competition, policy-makers involved in regulatory policies are being held more accountable for the significant economic resources, as well as the political capital invested in regulatory management systems now established in most OECD countries. Second, there is a growing interest in exploring how regulatory policies can be based more evidence and supported by empirical findings. More evidence-based approaches to the assessment of regulatory quality allow a review of the effectiveness of policy tools used in practice a review of their performance, but also an improvement of the design and implementation of future policies. So far, we observed a strong focus on ex ante impact assessments, because they have been required in the USA for a long time, and are meanwhile also obligatory in the European union 5 and some other industrialised countries prior to the final release of new policy measures, including new regulations. Ex ante impact assessment is required to check all possible impact dimensions and to evaluate the likelihood of their realisation and their strengths. 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 and not yet widely spread trend is the move toward ex post evaluation of regulations, which is part of the progressive development of regulatory policies, complementing ex ante evaluations 4. Ex post impact assessments are able to evaluate the efficacy and the efficiency of regulatory instruments by measuring and monitoring their performance (i e. data gathering and reporting strategies) and practices to review existing regulations. In order to justify a similar treatment of regulation and standards we have to mention another phenomenon which links standardisation and regulatory policies more strongly at the European level. For over twenty years, the so-called New approach has been the most prominent and successful approach to link standardisation and regulatory policy. The New approach, defined in a Council Resolution of May 1985, represents an innovative way of technical harmonisation. It introduces, among other things, a clear separation of responsibilities between the EC legislator and the European standards bodies CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in the legal framework allowing for the free movement of goods. EC directives define the essential requirements, e g.,, protection of health and safety that goods must meet when they are introduced to the market. The European standards bodies have the task of drawing up the corresponding technical specifications meeting the essential requirements of the directives, compliance with which will provide a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements. Such specifications are referred to as harmonised standards. Although standardisation processes are driven by industry, standards are now becoming an even more important element of the regulatory infrastructure. The New approach, confirmed by the recent ideas on European governance, requires the standards to be considered which complement or even substitute governmental regulations in comprehensive regulatory impact assessments even if the standardisation processes are moderated only by the formal standardisation development organisations (SDOS) and not funded or performed by public organisations. The convergence between governmental regulation and private standardisation justifies, and indeed requires, the inclusion of standards in our analysis. 497 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Regarding the impact assessment of standards, it has to be noted that the evaluation of standardisation processes or standards themselves is a rather rare and only recent phenomenon in the United states 7, where standard impact assessment is part of RTD evaluation, because of the assumption that standards are part of the technological infrastructure which is provided by public institutions e g. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST. The focus of this paper will be neither on ex post impact assessment of regulations and standards nor on ex ante impact assessments of specific options of regulatory instruments. However, regulatory impact assessment is the starting point for our contribution. The paper goes one step further and tries to address especially approaches which allow the identification of future fields for regulatory action, defined as regulatory foresight in the narrow sense (see Fig. 1), which was identified as a necessary instrument for policy-makers, especially regulatory bodies, also in order to foster the development of new markets by Blind et al. 8. Besides the tradition in regulatory impact assessment, we have to mention the other tradition of science and technology foresight exercises as instruments for governments, but also national research agencies and businesses, in their efforts to cope with the increasing complexity of new technologies and decision environments, in an increased techno-economic competition worldwide 9. Since the 1990s, quite a number of major foresight exercises have been launched in many European countries 10,11. The majority of experts consider foresight essentially as a collective and consultative process, with the process itself being equally or even more important than the outcome. Foresight exercises are ways of obtaining opinions about future developments. Foresight is different from prognosis or prediction. Implicitly it means taking an active role in shaping the future. As a possible result, our prognosis of today may be falsified in the future because of a new orientation resulting from foresight. Older attempts at planning the future by developing heuristic models (in the sense of futurology) were based on the assumption that the future is predefined as a linear continuation of present trends 12,13. Although these approaches largely failed, due to the inbuilt simplification of the actual dynamics of social, economic and technological developments, some studies nevertheless provoked a lively discussion about the future 14 15. In reality, future developments underlie reciprocal influences which cannot be assessed exhaustively in advance, thus not predicted. There is, nevertheless, a need to monitor the future prospectively: the accelerating changes that individuals as well as societies must adapt to socially and psychologically make Fig. 1. Regulatory foresight vs. regulatory impact assessment. 498 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 it necessary to anticipate these changes before they become reality 16. A new understanding of foresight gaining acceptance in the 1990s starting with Irvine and Martin 17 made clear that a targeted shaping of future developments is limited strictly and that the potential impacts of decisions can only partially be estimated. In the context of policy-making, the most important intentions of foresight exercises are to find out changes in consumer preferences and to detect new technological opportunities, identify a choice of technological opportunities, set policy, e g. regulatory, priorities and assess potential impacts and chances, discuss desirable and undesirable futures, prospect the potential impacts of current research, technology and regulatory policy, focus selectively on economic, technological, social and ecological areas as well as to start monitoring and detailed research in these fields. Consequently, foresight activities can and have been also be applied to regulation, in order to identify both promising areas for different types of regulation and their possible impacts. In the following, we report some foresight studies, which focus directly or indirectly on the future need and role of regulations. The crucial difference of our understanding of regulatory foresight is the main focus on the challenges for the regulatory regimes, whereas traditional technology foresight studies look for new promising fields in science and technology or new trends or needs in the market. In order to exploit these options, existing regulatory regimes have to be adapted or new frameworks have to be built. Therefore, some of the traditional foresight studies consider or cover also regulation as a policy instrument, but the main purpose is the reshaping of existing public research and development programmes or launching completely new programmes. Regulatory foresight in our perception is an instrument for regulatory bodies to identify future challenges for their regulatory regimes in advance in order to reshape them or develop new frameworks, which requires the long-lasting decision processes within the public, the political decision structures and the public administration. Based on the tradition of regulatory impact assessments and foresight exercises, we define regulatory foresight as strategic activity undertaken by governments and policy-makers responsible for regulatory regimes but not for science and technology policy in the narrower sense to identify future requirements for regulations or re-regulations, including formal standards released by standards development organisations not only in existing, but also emerging technologies, sectors or markets in order to shape pro-actively innovation-promoting regulatory framework conditions, which are crucial for the competitiveness of national or regional innovation systems. The analysis of regulatory foresight in the narrow sense is based, first, on a broad survey of literature databases and the internet regarding regulatory impact assessments in general, but also regulatory foresight in the narrower sense, which also allows an identification of the institutions most active in the field. Here, we have a certain focus on those exercises conducted in the field of information and communication technology1 as well as on standards which play as an important instrument of selfregullation We take the distinction between standards and regulatory impact assessment into account. However it has to be noted that in the field of standardisation we observe only some single ex ante impact assessments, whereas for regulatory impact assessments we find mainly ex ante exercises, which reflects 1 This focus is caused also by the fact that we rely on results of the project NO-REST(=Networking Organisations Research into Standards and Standardisation), an IST project of the 6th Framework programme. 499 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 also the results of the OECD 4. However, regulatory foresight in the narrow sense triggered by regulatory bodies is still the exception and often part of larger foresight exercises driven by stakeholders of science and technology policies. Moreover national SDOS, including some in the USA and in Japan, have been contacted to ask about ongoing impact assessment and foresight activities, which may not be available on their websites or from their press offices. However, it seems that only some informal small impact assessments have been conducted (e g.,, within informal discussions of participants in standardisation processes. Nevertheless, we could identify some activities attempting to determine the future demand for standards. In addition, we developed methodologies and approaches which represent revisions or adjustments of existing foresight methodologies, but also completely new approaches to identify ex ante major future challenges for regulatory policies. The overview of methodologies in Section 2 starts with a list of possible methodologies which are also relevant for assessing the impact of public R&d policies. At first we briefly describe the selected methods and concentrate then on a specific empirical validation of the methods. In the final chapter, we conclude with a brief critical evaluation of the methods based on the experiences collected in the project, or reported in the literature. Finally, we derive requirements for future research. 2. Overview of regulatory foresight methodologies In order to provide a first overview of methods to conduct regulatory foresight, we start with an evaluation matrix (Table 1) presenting methodologies to assess the impacts of different policy instruments. Here, legal frameworks as an object of assessment are part among the set of other policy instruments, like R&d funding, and are put in the context of possible evaluation and assessment technologies. Table 1 Evaluation matrix: matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment Benchmarking Financing R&d Provision of R&d infrastructure Technology transfer and innovation diffusion Legal frameworks (IPRS, standards and regulation) Integrated projects Networks of excellence Methodology: relevant somewhat relevant low relevance. Source: Fahrenkrog et al. 19.500 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Since our focus is mainly on regulatory foresight in the narrower sense, we will not discuss all methodologies appropriate for performing ex ante impact assessments of regulations and standards. Instead, we focus on those foresight methodologies for which we are able to provide original empirical evidence, but which are also adequate for performing regulatory foresight. Consequently, we will consider the following methodologies in the remainder of the paper: indicator-based approaches surveys Delphi studies. 3. Methodologies 3. 1. Indicator-based approaches 3. 1. 1. Introduction and definition New developments in science and technology often pose challenges for the existing regulatory framework, or call for the creation of new regulatory frameworks. Changes and dynamics in science and technology can be identified and traced by different indicators. These indicators allow the creation of comparisons between scientific and technological fields, between countries, organisations, and over time. The most important science and technology indicators are publications in scientific journals and patents 20. The former indicator reflects better the activities in basic research whereas the latter covers the performance in applied research and development. One rather new indicator 21 are released technical standards by formal standardisation bodies. Since standardisation is a kind of industry self regulation, it may be substitutive to, complementary to, or even part of the regulatory framework. Fig. 2 gives an overview of the science and technology indicators. The use of indicators to perform regulatory foresight exercises is just beginning. Since research activities only being performed in basic research are less likely to create challenges for the regulatory framework in the near or mid-term future patent indicators are suited better to perform regulatory foresight exercises in the sense of identifying dynamic fields of technology. Patents indicate the emergence of possible technologies, which are likely to be introduced later into future markets. The shortcoming of patents is that completely new fields of technology like biotechnology and software at first triggered off discussions about their patentability, before they appeared in the patent classifications. However, the use of time series of patent applications either differentiated by fields of technology, especially high technology, or by industrial classifications 22 allows us to define the most dynamic fields both worldwide and at the national level. Furthermore the time between the applications of patents and the market introduction of products based on these patents requires in general several years or even more than a decade, like in pharmaceuticals undergoing long-lasting clinical trials or even in some fields of electronics, e g. the first MP3 patents were applied for in the late 1980s whereas the broad commercialisation started ten years later 23. The need for regulatory adjustment is highest in those fields with a rather low level of activity at the starting point, which is an indicator of an emerging field. Since there are numerous regulatory challenges triggered by the dynamics in science and technology one has to differentiate the analysis in those fields of high dynamics. Regulatory challenges in the sense of controlling dominant players can be detected by calculating concentration indices of patent applications. Threats to health, safety and the environment can be identified by searches both in the patent data for 501 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 related patent applications and in literature databases for articles addressing the various risk aspects. The above mentioned aspect of the requirement to adjust the IPR or better the patent regime can be identified by respective discussions in the literature or by the creation of new classes in the international patent classification IPC. This procedure allows a rough assessment of the possible regulatory challenges caused by the dynamics in science and technology. 3. 1. 2. Examples So far, there are not many exercises which use science and technology indicators in order to explain future challenges for regulatory authorities, including standardisation organisations. Blind 25 shows, based on international and inter-sectoral cross-section data, that the output of formal standardisation bodies can be explained significantly by the patent applications as a reliable indicator for the dynamics in the respective technologies. 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. Based on this historical evidence it can be derived that dynamics in technology is reflected at least in standardisation activities as part of the regulatory framework in the European union. Very illustrative examples of the relevance of patents as early indicators for upcoming standardisation activities are the case of GSM 26. Empirical studies, which confirm the relationship between the dynamics of technology and the adaptation of the regulatory framework based on quantitative approaches, are missing. Some studies based on OECD data and other internationally comparable data investigated the influence of the regulatory framework on R&d activities 27 or product innovation 28. These studies do not consider that the outcome of R&d and innovation activities may challenge the existing regulatory framework and Fig. 2. Science and technology indicators (Source: Blind 21 modifying Grupp 24). 502 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 call for adjustments or even for a completely new framework. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the regulatory framework has been adapted to the emergence of new technologies, like in biotechnology. However, the proved link between science and technology, on the one hand, and changes in existing regulations or new regulations, on the other hand, underlines that the former can in general be used to determine possible challenges for the regulatory framework in the future. Nevertheless, only an indicatorbaase approach is able to be the basis for systematic regulatory foresight activities. Whereas standardisation activities are connected meanwhile to science and technology indicators in a reliable way 21, the link between science and technology indicators and indicators describing the regulatory framework is established not yet. This deficit is caused by a significant lack of regulatory indicators and especially of respective time series and of rather differentiated sub-categories in regulation. Furthermore, not all new developments in science and technology, but especially those with possible impacts on health, safety, the environment and on the functioning of markets require an adjustment of the regulatory framework. However, the identification of those regulation-relevant new technologies or new specifications within mature technologies is only just beginning and requires further methodological efforts. 3. 1. 3. General assessment Science and especially technology indicators are a possible source to detect challenges for the regulatory framework in the future. However this is a rather new approach, which cannot rely on a broad range of experience. Furthermore, simple quantitative approaches by constructing time series of science and technology indicators are not sufficient. It is necessary to focus, in a second step, on the regulationreleevan aspects and also to make use of the information about the stakeholders active for regulatory action in a potential new field. Conditions for methodology application: Science and technology indicators are easily available in publicly provided or commercially distributed databases. However, the methodological challenge is to meet the adequate level of specification and differentiation of the technology indicators, which fits to the differentiation of the regulatory landscape. The methodological approach is rather innovative and therefore neither broadly applied nor accepted. In the area of standardisation, it is applied already in various contexts. Data requirements/indicators: The simple quantitative use of science and technology indicators in order to detect future challenges for the regulatory framework is not sufficient. Within potential technological fields relevant for future regulation, regulation-relevant contents and possible stakeholders have to be identified, in order to be able to provide lists of challenges and areas for future regulatory action. General assessment of the scope and limits of methodology: The scope of science-and technology-based indicator approaches is certainly in detecting possible fields which will require regulatory action in the future. However, the identification of specific regulatory issues and even solutions cannot be achieved by applying simple indicator-based approaches. Nevertheless, complementary content and stakeholders analyses allow a further specification of possible fields of future regulation and the identification of stakeholders. These insights can then be used as input for other methodological approaches in regulatory foresight, e g. surveys or Delphi studies. 503 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 3. 2. Surveys 3. 2. 1. Introduction and definition Whereas the first methodology in Table 1 is focused too narrowly on innovation surveys2, in this section we cover surveys which aim to identify future needs regarding regulations and standards. The following operational steps for the performance of surveys to identify future demand for regulations and standards have to be distinguished: Elaboration of questionnaire (including the definition of questions on participation in standardisation and involvement in setting up regulatory frameworks, the relevance of regulations, the use of existing standards, the relevance of current regulations, future needs for standards and regulations and possible impact dimensions; Definition/construction of target population in terms of type of organisation, sectors, size classes, and regions Collection of survey and preparation of data set; Definition of goal variables of the organisation depending on the possible requirements for regulations and standards; Construction of an econometric model based on theoretically defined relation of regulations and standards and goal variables; Statistical or econometric data analysis and interpretation of results. 3. 2. 2. Examples Although we cannot refer to a large number of regulation-and standard-related surveys, we are able to report on some surveys, whose data permits the assessment of the future needs for and impacts of regulations and standards. In a European-wide company survey, companies were asked about the relevance of different types of regulations for the market introduction of new products and services and the various aspects of innovation activities 8. In addition, the respondents had the chance not only to assess the effectiveness of the current regulatory regime, but especially general aspects of the future regulatory system. Most efficient are assessed the requirement to use plain language when drafting regulations, the harmonisation and coordinnatio of the regulatory policies of different regulation bodies, the instalment of One-Stop Shops responsible for all regulation -related aspects, the acceleration and reduction of costs of certification and conformity assessments and generally the decrease in the amount of governmental regulations. Further more technology specific surveys focusing on the future regulatory requirements to react to progress in science and technology and changes in markets have not been conducted. In the area of standards as parts of the regulatory system we are able to reference a series of relevant surveys. 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. Recently, Swann 18 used this information to assess the impact of British standards for the innovation activities of British companies. 504 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Blum et al. 29 covered a variety of possible impacts of both company-specific informal industry and formal standards. Based on these assessments, it was also possible to identify whether a sector suffers under the burden of too many standards or suffers from having too few standards, especially regarding the promotion of innovation 21. Another large-scale study was conducted in The netherlands by Meeus et al. 30, who used the data to analyse the interrelationship between standardisation, research and export activities, taking subjective attitudes into account. The survey approach by Blum et al. was replicated for Denmark, integrating also service companies 31. This leads us to the studies on standards focusing on services or service companies. The start of standardisation activities within services is rather recent. De vries 32 33 was one of the first researchers who conducted first case studies on standards for services and developed a first taxonomy of service standards, which is accepted now widely by the research community. 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. However, in other countries, like the United kingdom, France and The netherlands 31, the national SDOS set up similar agendas. In October 2003, the European commission addressed a programming mandate to CEN CENELEC and ETSI in the field of services, in order to respond more adequately to the Fig. 3. Importance of standards for service-related aspects (3=medium importance to 5=very high importance). 505 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 increasing demand for service-related standards and to coordinate the different national activities better. In a survey among German service companies, Mörschel and Schwengels 35 present a ranking of future standardisation areas according to their priority, which reveals that standards for safety aspects, data security, 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. The answers to a question on the potential use and benefits of standards reveal that standards are important internally for cost reduction optimisation of processes and improving service quality, and externally for signalling a company's competence to customers, fulfilling legal obligations and for fostering domestic and international trade of services. Blind 36 extended and modified the above approach and was able to rely on the answers of a sample of more than 350 service companies in the European union, also in order to identify their future needs regarding service standards (see Fig. 3). As most important aspects, standards for quality management in general and customer satisfaction in a narrower sense must be mentioned, furthermore standards to improve data security and information systems in general. In addition the impacts of standards on central issues and assets of service companies have also been asked for and the answers confirm their general importance, but also that standards can support companies in fulfilling the needs of their customers and in securing a certain quality of the services provided. Both studies on service standards present mainly descriptive statistics, only Blind 37 applied a factor analysis approach to determine groups of service aspects relevant for standardisation, which correspond very well to the classification developed by De vries 32,33. However, one outcome of the second study was the publication of a programming mandate addressed to CEN CENELEC and ETSI published by the European commission 38 to develop a standardisation work programme to support the internal market for the service sectors. 3. 2. 3. The future needs for standards in nanotechnology based on a survey among stakeholders of Germany's nanotechnology community Besides the examples reported above, we present another example of a survey, which allows future needs for standards in an emerging technology to be identified. Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany. Based on a conceptual framework on the role of standards in the innovation process they derive that in a new emerging technology at first terminology standards, then measurement and testing standards and only later in the innovation cycle quality, safety and compatibility standards are required. In Fig. 4, we present the shares of those 30%participants involved in standardisation, differentiated by the four types of standards, which indirectly indicates their future relevance due to the long-lasting standardisation processes. The figure confirms that in current standardisation activities, the respondents still deal with terminology, but more especially with measurement and testing issues, whereas only a small share is involved already in the production of quality and compatibility standards. The division of the sample into companies and research organisations reveals that companies are already much more involved in the elaboration of quality and compatibility standards than research organisations. This pattern supports again our conceptual model by highlighting that terminology and measurement and testing standards are especially relevant for the organisations focusing on basic research, whereas quality, but particularly compatibility standards are central for applied research and experimental development. 506 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Summarising the results of the survey and relating them to the conceptual framework, we can draw the following main conclusions. Nanotechnology is still in an emerging phase, according to our conceptual model. The current standardisation activities are focused still on terminology and measurement and testing standards. The comparison between actual standardisation activities and the general assessment of the future relevance of the different types of standards exposes some discrepancies, especially regarding quality and compatibility standards. 3. 2. 4. General assessment In general, there is only limited experience in the use of surveys for identifying future needs for standards and regulation. Hence this assessment mainly depends on the experiences collected during the recent past and some previous studies cited above: Conditions for methodology application: Surveys are rather time-intensive, since they require the development of a questionnaire, the performance of a survey either via traditional postal mail or via online survey, the collection and cleaning of the data and finally, the analysis of the data. Surveys can be used to ask stakeholders about future needs for standardisation and regulation activities. Finally, surveys have a high acceptance as a methodology if certain aspects and shortcomings are considered adequately. Data requirements/indicators: The main advantage of surveys is that they allow the consideration of very specific regulatory challenges in the future, which cannot be covered by indicator-based methodologies. Hence, they are able to provide unique data in this respect. Depending on the size of these surveys, there should be the possibility to distinguish the future needs for standards and regulations differentiated into different types of stakeholder groups, which allows comparative analyses. If surveys address the universe of organisations, e g. firms, and lead to representative results, the data can be combined with indicator-based approaches representing the universe in science and technology. Fig. 4. Shares of involvement in producing different types of standards differentiated by type of organisation. 507 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 General assessment of the scope and limits of methodology In contrast to other strategic aspects of organisations, assessing the future needs for standards and regulations and their possible future impacts is rather difficult even for experts, because standards and regulations contain technical, strategic and legal aspects together and most experts in organissation cover just one dimension. This leads to rather moderate and low response rates. Surveys are probably not the best tool to collect information about the future needs for standards and regulations. However, they can be improved further to become a more reliable instrument in regulatory foresight i e. helping to identify needs for regulatory policy intervention. 3. 3. Delphi studies 3. 3. 1. Introduction and definition Delphi studies achieved high popularity in Europe in the 1990s 10,11. The Delphi method was developed originally in the USA, already in the 1960s 40,41 and regularly implemented by the Japanese government since 1970s 42. The Delphi methodology belongs to the subjective and intuitive methods of foresight. Issues are assessed, on which only uncertain and incomplete knowledge exists. It is structured based on a survey of expert groups and makes use of the implicit knowledge of participants. Hence the Delphi method has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. There is not a single method, but all agree that a Delphi study requires an expert survey in at least two or more rounds. Starting from the second round, a feedback is given about the results of previous rounds: the same experts assess the same matters once more, influenced by the opinions of the other experts. The methodology facilitates a relatively strongly structured group communication process, revealing conflicting as well as consensus areas. Delphi-based foresight exercises, therefore, were used repeatedly and increasingly in the context of policymakking building on their capacity to facilitate an alignment of actors'expectations through interactions. 3. 3. 2. Examples Although Delphi studies are also capable of identifying promising fields or future needs for regulation, the issue of regulation was taken only into account in the large national Delphi exercises in Japan 43, 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 and the obstacles regulations were transformed into changes in regulations. The survey results could be used to identify those areas which are hampered either by regulation or which can be promoted by adjustments of the regulatory framework. 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 and television markets. In Japan, the regulatory framework in communication technology is compared also crucial to most other technological areas 47. The relatively small importance of the regulatory framework for the future development of new issues in science and technology compared to other policy instruments is confirmed in the follow-up studies, 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, like the environment or in services 46.3 In contrast to the other obstacles, like technical or cost problems, the regulatory framework is of relatively small importance. 508 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 In contrast, the Japanese experts call for adjustments in the regulatory framework, especially in the information and communication field, for instance, the widespread use of electronic money, electronic voting or automated trading systems in their Sixth Japanese Delphi Report 45. This general pattern is confirmed by the results of the Seventh Japanese Delphi Report 48, not only in the field information, but also in the field business regarding e-commerce-related issues. 4 In summary, Delphi exercises focusing on the future of science and technology take the general regulatory framework into account as one kind of obstacle, but also as one possible policy measure. However, the role of regulatory frameworks for the realisation of progress in future sciences and technologies compared to other types of obstacles is limited rather. However, regulations still enjoy a rather high importance in the information and communication fields. From these experiences, it can also be derived that the Delphi methodology can be used to set priorities in regulation and to assess the future impacts of regulations in rather future sciences and technologies. However, surveying the activities in the last years, we can only list some exercises, like surveys and trend workshops, which tried to identify future needs in regulation in already existing or emerging markets. 3. 3. 3. A Delphi survey among telecommunication experts Whereas in most of the previous selected examples of Delphi studies regulation was a side aspect of secondary relevance, in the final section we will present some results of a small-scale Delphi study among participants of an ITU (International Telecommunication Union) expert workshop on Adjusting Forecasting methods to the Needs of the Telecommunication Sector organised in September 2004. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. In the first section, the respondents were asked to assess a selection of future technical and business developments taken from the Seventh Japanese Technology foresight Report 48, already published in 2001, with regard to their expected time of realisation, their importance, the effectiveness of policy measures, like R&d support, which includes R&d funding and improving the framework conditions for R&d, regulation (i e. reinforcing or establishing regulations); deregulation (relaxing or abolishing related regulations), and standardisation within formal standards development organisations for the implementation of these visions. Table 2 presents the assessment of the 21 telecommunication-related technologies expected to diffuse mostly within the next ten years. The role of standardisation is highest for the realisation of highly reliable network systems capable of protecting the privacy and secrecy of individuals and groups from the intrusion of ill-intentioned network intruders followed by online seal-free (signature-free) document preparation services for various official documents such as contracts which are provided via a network based on security technology capable of achieving both privacy protection and verification. In contrast the change of e-commerce-based retail shops from simple goods sellers to services (consulting, agent, etc. providers does obviously not require the support by standardisation and standards. Regulation is required especially for the implementation of systems capable of understanding and automatically checking the content of image data unsuitable for children which are available over networks. Here, selfregullatio via standardisation is obviously not sufficient. 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, and a common Delphi exercise 49, those technology fields were identified which are characterised by a high relevance of regulations as obstacles or as required policy measure. Based on this information three case studies based on the review of the regulatory frameworks and expert interviews were conducted 50. One of these case studies focused on the future regulatory framework for the use of smart cards. 509 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Table 2 Future needs for standardisation in information and communication technology (Source: NO-REST ITU Survey Fraunhofer ISI 2005)( 1=low importance to 5=high importance) Year Importance R&d Regulation Deregulation Standardisation Widespread use of highly reliable network systems capable of protecting the privacy and secrecy of individuals and groups from the intrusion of ill-intentioned network intruders. 2010 4. 88 4. 17 3. 13 1. 86 4. 28 Realisation of an environment in which the unlimited utilisation of high-capacity networks (150 Mbps) for around 15€/month or less is possible. 2012 3. 88 3. 73 2. 77 2. 73 3 . 20 Widespread use of online seal-free (signature-free) document preparation services for various official documents such as contracts which are provided via a network based on security technology capable of achieving both privacy protection and verification. 2010 4. 03 3. 30 3. 83 2. 13 3. 90 Widespread use of systems which facilitate multimedia communication from anywhere in the world using pocketbook-size portable terminals . 2010 3. 31 3. 70 2. 67 2. 50 3. 83 Development of an optical transmission system capable of high-volume transmission of 1 Peta bps per optical fibre. 2011 4. 20 4. 29 2. 39 2. 14 3. 61 Widespread use of a SCM (supply chain management system to handle data management (orders, design, manufacturing, operations, and maintenance) uniformly among related companies. 2009 3. 33 3. 14 2. 39 2. 29 3. 54 Development of a super high-speed computer communication protocol capable of achieving a throughput of tens of Gbps. 2011 3 71 4. 00 2. 50 2. 38 3. 19 Development of technology capable of automatically detecting viruses and automatically producing corresponding vaccines. 2010 4. 69 4. 03 2. 87 2. 47 3 . 07 The number of recycled parts in new personal computers, including displays, exceeds 90%of all component parts. 2011 4. 16 4. 17 3. 97 2. 17 2. 83 Widespread use of a security technology that automatically monitors illicit activities involving network ethics, such as copyright infringement concerning multimedia software use over a network and the violation of privacy. 2012 3. 47 3. 13 3. 70 1. 73 2 . 40 Practical use of systems capable of understanding and automatically checking the content of image data unsuitable for children which are available over networks 2011 3. 84 3. 66 4. 13 1. 73 3. 00 A service that evaluates the security of the e-commerce system of individual companies and reports the results is used by 80%of consumers who use e-commerce services. 2011 4. 13 3. 64 3. 14 2. 29 3. 57 Practical use of card -size wireless communication instruments capable of changing specifications, such as centre frequencies, band width, modulation method, and error correction method, by software operations. 2010 3. 57 3. 79 2. 64 2. 43 3. 43 Practical use of optical communication systems capable of transmitting signals through multiplexed 1000 channels at 100 Gbps over a single optical fibre. 2013 3. 54 4. 00 2. 15 1. 69 3. 12 Widespread use of gigabit-class global satellite communication systems. 2012 3. 69 4. 00 2. 46 2. 25 3. 46 More than 20%of retail shops earn more from their services (consulting, agent, etc. than from their goods sales following the expansion of e-commerce. 2013 2. 53 2. 43 1. 39 2. 57 2. 00 Widespread use at the consumer purchase stage of a cost-plus pricing system in which, unlike current practices, product prices are set based separately on maker price (ex-factory price, producer price) and intermediate distribution service price following 2021 2. 62 2. 17 1. 83 2. 33 2. 33 Reduction in urban traffic by 20 30%from current levels through the expansion of telecommuting and tele-shopping. 2015 3. 73 3. 04 2. 93 2. 00 2. 21 Production on order rather than production on estimated demand becomes the norm due to the increased sophistication of e-commerce networks and improved efficiency of business cycle times, resulting in a dramatic reduction of inventory risk for companies. 2014 3. 65 3. 42 1. 86 2. 35 2. 38 All public transport bookings, confirmation of transport services, and inquiries about the location of luggage or an individual (with that person's approval) are done commonly through the internet from home or using portable terminals. 2009 3. 38 2. 97 2. 32 2. 04 3. 13 Improvement of the data communication environment and widespread use of telecommuting support services, enabling at least half of company workers engaged in indirect duties to tele-commute. 2015 3. 25 3. 20 2. 53 2. 23 3. 07 510 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 pushed by adequate regulations, whereas again standardisation is assessed to be limited of effectiveness for achieving this objective. There are obvious different impacts of governmental regulations and standardisation as an important form of self regulation with the former type being more effective for achieving health, safety and environmental aspects, whereas the latter is able to push network effects. Based on correlation analysis referring to the 21 items, we still find a positive correlation between regulation and standardisation, whereas regulation and deregulation correlate negatively. In addition, both regulation and self regulation loose significantly in importance the more in the future a new technology might be realised. Finally the assessment of R&d support and standardisation as a more diffusion oriented policy instrument correlate very high, which confirms the positive linkage found in historical data 25, whereas the statistical connection between R&d support and regulation is rather vague. 3. 3. 4. General assessment In general, we could identify only very few and not very systematic foresight exercises regarding future priorities for regulations and standards. 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 but also for the ex ante assessment of the impacts of regulations standards. Furthermore, the small-scale Delphi survey focusing on the future demand for standards in the ICT area confirmed the general applicability of this approach, but revealed also some very important new methodological insights. Conditions for methodology application: Foresight methodologies including scenario, Delphi and even simulation approaches are rather costly and time-consuming, involving numerous experts. They require a very careful performance of the often multi-stage methodological processes. Furthermore, most foresight approaches actively involve stakeholders and their inputs. Foresight methodologies can also be used to assess ex ante the impacts of just released, but even regulations and standards not yet existing. The classical foresight methodologies enjoy a high acceptance, if they are performed in an adequate way. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to overburden certain approaches, like Delphi surveys, which may damage their acceptance. Data requirements/indicators: The application of the Delphi method to the issue of regulations and standards requires the development of questionnaires, which should include relevant technologies and areas requiring different types of new regulations or an adjustment of existing regulations in the future. Furthermore, relevance categories, like improved security, interoperability, quality or productivity or reduced transaction costs, have to be developed, which are the criteria for setting priorities in the possible regulatory instruments, like safety regulations or standards. The Delphi survey should be addressed to all parties involved in the regulatory process itself, but also to all possible direct users of the regulated products and services and indirectly influenced parties. This is a different target group compared to science and technology foresights focusing both on active researchers and stakeholders responsible for shaping and performing R&d programmes. In general, the people addressed should be selected according to a minimum degree of expertise in the field. 511 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Since Delphi surveys run at least two rounds, it is necessary to have samples which are large enough to generate a sufficient number of responses. Again in contrast to traditional science and technology foresight exercises representatives from companies, especially those involved in regulatory affairs and marketing issues, have to be involved as well as those ministries responsible for general regulatory issues and the officers in regulatory bodies taking care of the implementation of regulations. A further challenge regarding the sampling is the involvement of the citizens, which is required to detect fields where regulations can help to increase the acceptance of future technologies and innovative products. In order to achieve a high response rate, the questionnaire should be kept short and simple, since surveying regulatory issues represents a special challenge. For the development of scenarios on the future role of regulation, information about the various regulatory options has to be collected. Information about the future developments of the factors should also be available. Then consistency checks have to be made, in order to identify different future scenarios. For each scenario, the respective relevance and impacts of the selected regulation have to be determined. General assessment of the scope and limits of methodology: Delphi surveys are flexible and can be applied in all areas, covering all possible future driving forces, but also possible impacts of regulations and standards. Delphi surveys require the identification of a sufficient number of experts dealing with regulatory issues and being able to assess the future role and types of regulation. An important general limitation of the Delphi method is the well-known fact that sudden science and technology breakthroughs often have not been foreseen by the majority of main stream oriented experts, but were anticipated by a few unorthodox thinkers. This raises in general no problems for Delphi studies focusing on regulatory issues since the time frame of such studies should not be much more than ten years. A classical feature of the Delphi methodology is the promotion of a convergence process leading to a consensus by surveying the experts at least twice and confronting them with the assessment of the average opinion. The problem is how to guarantee for the detection of strategic answers, e g. by industry respondents trying to avoid or influence future regulations. 4. Comparison and assessment of methodologies Although we cannot refer to a broad sample of regulatory foresights, we have been able to collect relevant experiences from some selected studies and to conduct several studies trying to determine the future needs for regulations and standards, sometimes also including an assessment of their possible impacts. Table 3 constitutes an attempt to summarise the information included in the methodologies section and the results and experiences collected. For a deeper appreciation of the methodology of interest, it is advised to refer directly to the specific section. However, this is only a starting point of an assessment of regulatory foresight methodologies. Despite the availability of a number of foresight methods, there is a scope and a need to look for further methodological improvements towards regulatory foresights focusing on future strategies and actions concerning regulation and the special needs of regulatory bodies. Especially the use of science and technology indicators to detect future challenges for and fields of regulations is developed not yet. Simple quantitative approaches are not sufficient. However, the databases provide further information about 512 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 regulation-relevant contents, like health, environmental and safety aspects addressed in scientific publications or patents, and even the identification of stakeholders, especially companies, but also researchers, to be involved in the regulatory process. Based on the few existing experiences with surveys, it can be concluded that this methodology allows the identification of very specific future regulatory issues. However, the reliability and validity of the results depend crucially on the identification of the adequate sample of stakeholders. The responses of the survey are only valid indications if all relevant stakeholder groups are addressed adequately and strategic responses can be corrected for. Otherwise, this approach produces rather biased assessments. The same is true for Delphi surveys. Consequently, the combination of indicator-based approaches, which allow at least the identification of stakeholders in science and technology working both in research institutes and private companies, is an option to improve the reliability and the validity of survey results. Stakeholders from the user and even the consumer side are much more difficult to select based on the presented indicator methodologies and to integrate them into survey and Delphi approaches. The same is true for Table 3 Overview and assessment of regulatory foresight methodologies Methodology Type Data requirements Strengths Limitations Indicators Quantitative also providing qualitative information Adequate science and technology indicators combined with qualitative data Systematic approach Only quantitative data is not sufficient to detect emerging fields of regulation Comparison across technologies, countries and over time Little information about possible types of regulation Detailed analysis allows the identification of specific regulation-relevant content and even stakeholders Influence of non-technology-related factors cannot be considered Surveys Quantitative Micro data of the respondent and the organisation Detect insights of specific needs for future regulation High cost and time-consuming Qualitative Assessment of future relevance of regulation, but also actual relevance of existing regulation Findings from the surveyed sample can be generalised to the universe Processing and analysis of data requires large human resources Identification of adequate samples Some types of information are difficult to obtain (answers to counterfactual questions or earlier situations) Long time series generally not available Delphi studies Qualitative Qualitative and semiquantiitativ data from Delphi surveys Consensus-building to reduce uncertainty about regulatory priorities and impacts Impossibility to detect major technological breakthroughs and their regulatory requirements Semiquantiitativ In case of conflicting interests, missing-consensus about priorities Identification of experts Uncertainty increases with complexity of the context (technology, markets ) and future time horizon 513 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 representatives of public organisations and regulatory bodies, who also cannot be identified by the use of science and technology indicators. The use of Delphi studies for regulatory foresight is faced with the similar strengths and weaknesses of using this approach to identify future trends in science and technology. In addition the range of stakeholders and experts to be integrated in a Delphi exercise to perform a regulatory foresight becomes wider and more complex, since not only experts in science and technology, possible users and consumers, but also members of public organisations, e g. regulatory bodies, have to be addressed. This much more complex community of experts is also a challenge for designing the Delphi survey questionnaire. In addition, the time frame of Delphi studies focusing on regulatory issues should be much shorter covering only the next ten years, since the need for the development of new or the adoption of existing regulatory instruments can only be assessed if rather specific commercial applications of new sciences and technologies already exist. For shaping regimes of intellectual property rights, like the patent or copyright system, longer time ranges may be appropriate. In order to illustrate and analyse different regulatory options, the scenario technique is an appropriate methodology, since often the regulatory option ranges between massive interventions in the market and doing nothing in a liberal laissez-faire policy style. This short methodological assessment of the few different regulatory foresight methodologies discussed already makes obvious that a simple transfer from applying the methodologies to identify emerging science and technology fields into regulatory foresight is not sufficient. Significant adjustments and further developments have to be made in order to achieve an adequate methodological base which allows the performance of regulatory foresights producing valid, reliable and convincing results to be used in policy-making processes, because regulatory bodies have in general no experiences with foresight activities and a long-lasting process of convincing stakeholders about the need and effectiveness of such approaches are required. Aspects of regulatory foresights are included already partly in previous, more general foresight exercises. However, this dimension is compared underemphasised to the objective to identify future priorities for public R&d funding and the available results are exploited not adequately. The advances in regulatory foresight have to be directed to strengthen this dimension in general foresight activities but also specific methodologies focusing on regulatory foresight have to be developed, which address regulation-specific dimensions, like possible implications on competition, indicators, like regulatory indicators, and stakeholders, like regulatory bodies. 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. The new developed systematic approach to identify future fields for standardisation combines both an indicator-based approach with a Delphi exercise and leads to promising results 51, but requires further development and fine-tuning. References 1 OECD, Regulatory Reform in the United states, OECD, Paris, 1999.2 OECD, Regulatory Impact analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries, OECD Publications Service, Paris, 1997.3 R. E. Löfstedt, The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary principle to (Regulatory) Impact analysis, AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (ed.),Working Paper 04-07,2004. 4 OECD: Regulatory Performance: Ex Post evaluation of Regulatory policies Proceedings from the OECD Expert Meeting September 2003, OECD (ed.),Paris: OECD Publications Service,(2003. 514 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 5 European commission, European Governance: Better Lawmaking, COM, Brussels, 2002.275 final. 6 C. Böhret, G. Konzendorf, Handbuch Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung (GFA) Gesetze, Verordnungen, Verwaltungsvorschriften, NOMOS Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden -Baden, 2001.7 G. Tassey, Methods for Assessing the Economic impacts of Government R&d, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2003.8 K. Blind, B. Bührlen, C . Kotz, K. Menrad, R. Walz, New Products and Services: Analysis of Regulations Shaping New Markets, European commission DG Enterprise (ed.),Luxembourg,(2004. 9 B. R. Martin, Foresight in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 7 (2)( 1995) 139 168.10 K. Blind, K. Cuhls, H. Grupp, Current foresight activities in Central europe, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 60 (1)( 1999) 15 35.11 J. Landeta, Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (2006) 467 482.12 O k. Flechtheim, Futurologie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, Frankfurt/M./Berlin, 1968.13 O. Helmer, Social Technology, Basic books, New york/London, 1966.14 J. W. Forrester , Der teuflische Regelkreis: Das Globalmodell der Menschheitskrise, Stuttgart, 1971.15 D. L. Meadows, D. H. Meadows, E. Zahn, P. Milling, The Limits to Growth, Universe Books , New york, 1972.16 O. Helmer, Analysis of the Future: The Delphi method, Rand Corporation, Santa monica, 1967.17 J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners, London, Dover, 1984.18 P. Swann: Do standards enable or constrain innovation? In: The Empirical Economics of Standards. Department of Trade and Industry (ed.),London, pp. 76 120,2005. 19 G. Fahrenkrog, W. Polt, J. Rojo, A. Tübke, K. Zinöcker, RTD Evaluation Toolbox Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville: European commission: Joint research Centre,(eds. 2002). ) 20 H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The netherlands), 2004.21 K. Blind, The Economics of Standards Theory, Evidence, Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham , 2004.22 U. Schmoch, F. Laville, P. Patel, R. Frietsch, Linking Technology areas to Industrial Sectors, Final Report to the European commission, DG Research, Karlsruhe, 2003.23 K. Blind, Patent pools a solution to patent conflicts in standardisation and an instrument of technology transfer, in: K. Jakobs, K. Krechmer, T. Gyedi (Eds. Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Conference on Standardisation and Innovation in Information technology, 2003, pp. 27 35, Delft. 24 H. Grupp, The Foundations of the Economics of Innovation theory, Measurement and Practice , Elgar, Cheltenham, 1998.25 K. Blind, Driving forces for standardization in standards development organizations, Appl. Econ. 34 (16)( 2002) 1985 1998.26 R. Bekkers, G. Duysters, B. Verspagen, Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure the case of GSM , Research policy, vol. 31 (7), 2002, pp. 1141 1161.27 K. Koch, M. Rafiquzzaman, S. Rao, The Impact of Regulatory policies on Innovation: Evidence from G-7 Countries, Industry Canada, Ottawa, 2004.28 A. Bassanini, E. Ernst: Labour Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation: Cross country Evidence, ECO/WKP (2002) 2, OECD (ed.),Paris. 29 U. Blum, A. Töpfer, G. Eickhoff, I. Junginger, Gesamtwirtschaftlicher Nutzen der Normung: Unternehmerischer Nutzen Beuth-Verlag, 2 Bände, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.30 M. T. H. Meeus, J. Faber, L a. G. Oerlemans, Why do firms participate in standardization? An empirical exploration of the relation between isomorphism and institutional dynamics in standardization, Working Paper Department of Innovation studies, Univ. of Utrecht, Utrecht, 2002.31 T. Vad, European Standardisation why paradoxically small and unambitious? EURAS Proceedings 2004, Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz in Aachen, Aachen, 2004, pp. 24 38.32 H. J. De vries, Standardization in service sectors exploration of market needs in The netherlands, Proceeding of the First Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, Universität der Bundeswehr, Hamburg, 1997, pp. 311 333.33 H. J. De vries, Standardization: a business approach to the role of national standardization organizations, Kluwer Academic Publ. Boston, 1999.34 DIN: Standardisierung in der deutschen Dienstleistungswirtschaft Potenziale und Handlungsbedarf Beuth, DINFACHBBERICH 116, Berlin: Beuth,(ed.)(2002. 515 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 35 I. Mörschel, C. Schwengels: Standardisierungspotenziale für Dienstleistungen Ergebnisse einer allgemeinen Bedarfserhebung, Standardisierung in der deutschen Dienstleistungswirtschaft Potenziale und Handlungsbedarf. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (ed.).Berlin: Beuth Verlag Gmbh, pp. 51 65 (2002. 36 K. Blind, Standards in the Service Sectors: An Explorative Study Report for DG Enterprise of the European commission, ISI, Karlsruhe, 2003.37 K. Blind, A taxonomy of standards in the service sector: theoretical discussion and empirical test, Serv. Ind. J. 26 (4)( 2006. 38 European commission Enterprise Directorate-General, Programming Mandate Addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in the Field of Services, European commission, Brussels, 2003.39 K. Blind, S. Gauch, Frictions 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 Study, Rand Corporation, Santa monica/California, 1964.41 O. Helmer, Looking Forward. A Guide to Futures research, Beverly hills/London/New delhi, 1983.42 K. Cuhls, Technikvorausschau in Japan. Ein Rückblick auf 30 Jahre Delphi-Expertenbefragungen, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.43 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP: The Fifth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan (NISTEP Report No. 25, English translation of the 5th Japanese Delphi Report, abridged version), Tokyo. 44 Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT: Deutscher Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung vonwissenschaft und Technik, Bonn,(ed.)(1993. 45 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP; Science and Technology agency (1997: The Sixth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan toward The Year 2025, No. 52, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,(1993. 46 K. Cuhls, K. Blind, H. Grupp, Delphi'98 Umfrage. Zukunft nachgefragt, Studie zur globalen Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik, Karlsruhe, 1998.47 K. Cuhls, T. Kuwahara, Outlook for Japanese and German Future technology , Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.48 Science and Technology foresight Center (NISTEP), The Seventh Technoloy Forecast Future technology in Japan toward the Year 2030, No. 72 , NISTEP Report, Tokyo,, 2001.49 K. Cuhls, S. Breiner, H. Grupp, Delphi-Bericht 1995 zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik Mini-Delphi, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)( ed.),Bonn: BMBF,(1996. 50 S. Kuhlmann, C. Bättig, K. Cuhls, V. Peter, Regulation und künftige Technikentwicklung, Technik, Wirtschaft und Politik. Schriftenreihe des Fraunhofer ISI; Bd. 31, Physica-Verl. Berlin, 1998.51 K. Blind, K. Goluchowicz, Identifikation zukünftiger Standardisierungsfelder, DIN-Mitt. Maerz)( 2007) 6 10. Prof. Dr. Knut Blind is an economist by training and holds the chair on Innovation Economics at the Berlin University of Technology since 2006. In addition he is head of the competence center Regulation and Innovation of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research. Since more than ten years he is conducting studies both in the area of technology foresight, 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

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011