Future scenarios to inspire innovation Peter De Smedt a,, Kristian Borch b, Ted Fuller c a SVR, Research centre of the Flemish Government, Boudewijnlaan 30, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium b Department of Management Engineering , Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark c Faculty of business and Law, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 4 july 2011 Received in revised form 24 june 2012 Accepted 23 august 2012 Available online 11 november 2012 In recent years, accelerated by the economic and financial crisis, complex global issues have moved to the forefront of policy-making. These grand challenges require policy-makers to address a variety of interrelated issues, which are built upon yet uncoordinated and dispersed bodies of knowledge. Due to the social dynamics of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging, however there is lack of exploitation of novel ideas and sustainable solutions to address these grand challenges. In this paper we argue that issues of how knowledge is represented can have a part in this lack of exploitation. For example when drivers of change are not only multiple but also mutable, it is not sensible to extrapolate the future from data and relationships of the past. This paper investigates ways in which futures thinking can be used as a tool for inspiring actions and structures that address the grand challenges. By analyzing several scenario cases, elements of good practices and principles on how to strengthen innovation systems through future scenarios are identified. This is needed because innovation itself needs to be oriented along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Reflexive inquiry Innovation Scenario practice Grand challenges 1. Introduction In the context of this paper, future scenarios can be seen as narratives set in the future to explore how the society would change if certain trends were to strengthen or diminish, or various events were to occur. Future scenarios substantially differ from predictions, i e.,, extrapolations or trends, substituting the criterion of plausibility for probability 1. Scenarios are not equivalent to images of the future, but they consist of images of the future. Images of the future are snapshots of future states, whereas scenarios consist of a logical sequence of images of the future 2. 1. 1. Developing and using future scenarios Scenario analysis is practiced across many domains and is restricted not to specialized futurists or scenario specialists 3. Developing and using scenarios can contribute at various levels of society by generating appropriate inputs for planning and decision-making and by facilitating dialogues between various stakeholders 4. The value of the scenario exercise depends on the ways in which the resulting insights are implemented in on-going and forthcoming actions. However, the explicit and direct uses of scenarios in predefined decision-making contexts are just part of a broader social process 5. Also important indirect and diffuse links exist between developing and using scenarios and orienting innovation systems and research priorities 6. Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 Corresponding author. Tel.:++32 2 5535785; fax:++32 2 5535808. E-mail address: peter. desmedt@dar. vlaanderen. be (P. De Smedt. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx. doi. org/10.1016/j. techfore. 2012.10.006 Contents lists available at Sciverse Sciencedirect Technological forecasting & Social Change Developing and using future scenarios can: -contribute to society's strategic intelligence by stimulating future-oriented thinking and by widening the perspectives and knowledge base of researchers, policy-makers and business decision-makers. -be useful in creating a common language and understanding between the various interest groups. -create and support a systemized negotiation process among key stakeholders (social actors. -be helpful in engaging decision-makers in specific issues, legitimating a chosen course of action, and supporting fruitful debates among stakeholders. Although the use of scenarios has gained much adherence, its subjective and heuristic nature leaves many academics and decision-makers uncomfortable 7. How do we know whether we have credible and salient scenarios? And how does developing and using scenarios lead to the expected direct and indirect inputs for orienting innovation systems? These concerns are legitimate and the use of scenarios would gain in academic standing if more research were conducted on their comparative performance and underlying theoretical premises 7. While the scenario literature makes explicit the methodological differences and similarities of various approaches, it tends to pay little attention to the underlying epistemological assumptions 8. For example, scenarios that imaginatively represent plausible futures will meet resistance if they are used as predictions. 1. 2. Grand challenges The aim of this paper is to initiate a discussion on how scenario analysis can help to better cope with the grand challenges and to disclose some principles by which scenario processes can inspire innovation. Today's grand challenges from climate change to unemployment and poverty go beyond economic and social policies 9. Grand challenges are interrelated usually and operating at a global scale 10. Often it is not clear what the real causes are and different policy options are competing, causing shifts in problem perception and priority setting. One result of the above described complexity is a type of uncertainty about the future, an uncertainty whose distinctive feature is disagreement among experts and stakeholders about the long-term consequences of present-day innovations 11. In addition, uncertainty increases as policy targets move progressively further from the present and it is uncomfortable: fear of the unknown generates resistance to change 12. But also efforts to control, manage, and engineer the future produce increased uncertainties 13. For instance, developments in science and technology have a strong potential to influence social change. There are, however, many reasons why the practical use of scientific knowledge and technology varies widely between countries. Societies differ, just as economies, and governments deal with international scientific developments in different ways through the policies they pursue 14. This analysis indicates that policy and systems of innovation are shaped by social, cultural and political power as well as by technological rationalism and such indeterminism makes systemic approaches to innovation policy far from linear or predictable. The recent economic crisis reminds us of the importance of mobilizing science, technology and innovation not solely for generating economic benefits, but also for anticipating and responding to the grand challenges 15. At a strategic level, the European union took up this challenge via the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative as part of the Europe 2020 strategy launched in 2010. This initiative is an example of a strategic approach integrating research and innovation instruments and actors to tackle the innovation emergency related to the grand challenges the European union is facing 16, p1. Futures thinking is an essential element of developing such a strategy. For example, Hamel and Prahalad 17 emphasize that strategy should draw up consistent visions of the future. In addition several scholars state that scenarios constitute a major tool for considering the future in strategic planning 18 23. The traditional concepts and models of innovation are not always adequate to embrace the complexity for addressing the grand challenges 10,15. Grand challenges require that policy-makers address a variety of interrelated issues, which are built upon as yet uncoordinated and dispersed bodies of knowledge. It has been documented well that the innovation process is interactive including a multitude of short-term and long-term feedback loops between the different stages of the innovation process 15,24. Looking at the grand challenges innovations are not only contributing to the solutions. Innovations in the past have been also part of the current unsustainable trends. Therefore innovation research needs increasingly be oriented towards the challenges presented by environmental complexity and socioeconomic turbulence 25. In order to investigate how scenario analysis can help better cope with the grand challenges and inspire innovation, we analyze several scenario exercises to better understand the role future scenarios can play as a tool for orienting innovation systems. The remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows: Section 2 sets out the methodology of how we use reflexive inquiry to analyze the scenario case studies. Section 3 describes how we conceptualize inspiring issues and paradigms from different scientific disciplines such as business and innovation research, futures studies, sociology and policy analysis. These concepts and paradigms are used then to analyze the selected scenario case studies. For example, we look how the applied or perceived modes of thinking about the future and multiple stakeholder values are initiating enablers or barriers for the scenario process. In this paper we argue that this kind of reflexive inquiry can and does provide a sound basis for challenging current practice, learning from experience and better articulating our underlying theoretical premises. The outcomes of this inquiry are presented in Section 4 including also implications for practitioners by elaborating elements of good practices and areas of improvement. In Section 5, we further discuss our findings addressing how scenario practice can orientate innovation systems in the view of the grand challenges. Finally, in Section 6 we summarize our findings and conclude with suggested points of departure for further research. 433 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 2. Material and methods How can we learn about orienting innovation systems from future scenario practice? We use the word practice to describe the implementation or execution of a concept, plan, methodology or theory. Most practice is based on a set of theories or assumptions. Sometimes those theories are explicit, most often they are implicit. The connection between practice and theory (unlike that between theory and practice) has traditionally been ignored, to the detriment of both 26. Reflexive inquiry draws on a social constructionist view of the world and provides a powerful approach that offers insights for academics and practitioners into how we constitute knowledge and realities in our thinking and research practice 27. Reflexivity as a methodology 28 questions representation by suggesting that we are constantly constructing meaning and social realities as we interact with others and talk about our experience. We therefore cannot ignore the situated nature of that experience and the cultural, historical, and linguistic traditions that permeate our work 27. This means that practice, such as scenario practice, is rooted in a particular moment and place. In accordance with Cunliff 27 and to be consistent with reflexive inquiry, we first have to deconstruct scenario practice. In order to do so, three complementary questions on policy change are applied to analyze the case studies:(i) How can developing and using future scenarios present a window of opportunity to effectively drive decisions?(ii) How can developing and using future scenarios enhance the legitimacy for action?(iii) How can developing and using future scenarios provide evidence to decision-makers empowering the stakeholders involved? The three questions represent a specific perspective linking action and decision-makingwith issues of (i) emergence, i e. window of opportunity;(ii) legitimacy, i e. truth claims; and (iii) empowering, i e. stakeholder values 29. This questioning takes then the form of a‘turning back'on knowledge, language, and representation to make them more transparent (27, p. 985, after Lawson 30). The empirical evidence is based on a sample of 17 scenario projects (see Appendix 1. for an overview of the cases. This paper reports on the reflexive inquiry that originates from several workshops with scientists and practitioners where the case studies have been articulated and analyzed in their context as part of the Cost Action A22 network. 1 In doing so, the workshops allowed for a systematic ex-post evaluation of similarities and differences between the chosen scenario projects. In the context of this paper, we will argue that this process of reflexive inquiry will provide the basis for creating new insights and adapting our underlying theoretical premises. 3. Concepts of innovation, futures thinking and scenarios 3. 1. Innovation systems Innovation involves the application of new ideas or the reapplication of old ideas in new ways to develop better solutions to our needs 31. Innovation is invariably a cumulative, collaborative activity in which ideas are shared, tested, refined, developed and applied 32. The concept of national innovation systems is rooted in evolutionary economic theorizing on socio-technical change 33 35. The development of innovation theory over the past decades has involved a major reformulation, with innovation no longer seen primarily as a process of discovery, i e. new scientific or technological principles, but rather as a nonlinear process of learning 36. An innovation system is never static; it evolves with alterations in the content of technologies and products as well as in the relationships among various other innovation systems. Due to the socially dynamic characteristic of innovation 37, new socio-technical (sub systems will emerge over time 22. By consequence, innovation systems are described as networks of actors and institutions that develop, diffuse and use innovations 38. Hence, innovation leads to change only to the extent that agents are successful in taking advantage of the opportunities, i e. agents need to develop capabilities 39. Innovation in the 21st century differs from the model embraced in the last century (i e. profit-oriented and nationally targeted) with a linear, technological and deterministic characteristic 15. Although the innovation process is now much more open and receptive to social influences, further progress calls for a greater involvement of stakeholders who can introduce the necessary capabilities and interests in research and innovation to address the grand challenges. For instance, Hekkert et al. 40 highlight that stimulating knowledge flows (alone) is not sufficient to induce technological change and economic performance. There is a need for stakeholders to exploit this knowledge in order to create new business opportunities. This stresses the importance of stakeholders as sources of innovation. The required characteristics of the new mode of public involvement are challenging: long-term forward-looking intervention, inter-ministerial, demand-side instruments combined and coordinated with supply-side instruments, based on foresight, and hence participative 15. Our understanding of the unpredictable inter-dependency of multiple forces means that more experimental approaches to creating new solutions are necessary. Thus through trial-and-error and learning-by-doing 1 The Cost Action A22 network was a four year program (2004 2007) entitled Foresight methodologies Exploring new ways to explore the future and funded by the Individuals, Societies, Culture and Health technical committee of the European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical research (Cost. The program was operationalized through a series of eight workshops, followed by an open scientific conference in July 2007. The main research questions were: What methodological issues are salient in relation to the identification of emerging trends and change? How commensurable are different modes of modeling and other forms of dynamical representation? How can different communities of practice interact in an overall productive and interested way? 434 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 experiments in the policy process, new concepts and sustainable solutions can be found to grand challenges. Hence, the social dimension in innovation should be acknowledged as a legitimate research area and linkages with social systems of innovation and social innovation stakeholders should be strengthened so that innovation experiments include the inherent social dimension within the research community 15.3.2. Futures thinking Futures thinking is used for medium to long-term strategic analysis and planning. According to Jørgensen 41, citing Dreborg 42, there are three modes of thinking about the future, each with their own methodologies the predictive, the eventualities and the visionary mode of thinking, see Table 1 for a more elaborate description. As highlighted in Table 1, the different modes of thinking imply a focus on a different representation of the future. Representations of the future can be seen as metaphorical descriptions. Usually, these representations are mental images, but they can also be external representations, such as pictures or textual imagery 43. One of the often-overlooked elements in the innovation process that hinders smooth communication and interaction within emergent networks is time 44. Following Adam 12 time has many meanings beyond‘clock time'.'Adam argues that the meaning of time is constructed socially and that such meaning is performative. Futurists are used of course to deal with short, medium and long-term perspectives, but it has been shown that differences in the construction of time play a significant role in the construction of meaning about the future (e g. of nanotechnologies 44). The generic methodological requirement from this perspective is an explicit account of the construction of time within the context of the study at hand. For instance, time is considered to be historically and culturally specific. Different historical periods, different cultures, and different stages of the lifecycle all display different relationships to time. This means that situations are rooted in a particular moment and place and seen through the perspective of a certain set of lenses 45.3.3. Scenario practice and related techniques Reflecting the uncertain threats of the cold war, the development of scenario practice as a methodology for planning and decision-making probably started more than half a century ago in the field of war game analysis. The Rand Corporation in the US became a major center for scenario thinking and Herman Kahn, who joined Rand, explored the application of systems analysis and game theory in order to encourage‘thinking the unthinkable'8. Meanwhile in France, Gaston Berger started using scenarios to explore the long-term political and social future. He founded the Centre d'Etudes Prospectives and his approach to scenarios was primarily normative, i e. scenarios intended to provide a guiding vision of the future for policy-makers 46. Scenario building and planning was developed further for management purposes, for example through the works of Pierre Wack Peter Schwartz and many others 8. Since then, scenario approaches have continued to evolve and their use seems to be increasing again 18,47, 48. Developing and using scenarios are professional practices to support significant decisions, and therefore it needs to be more assured of its claims to knowledge (methodology). For instance, forecasting and modeling methods have a focus on what is known and what is unknown. This can encompass ‘What is likely',in terms of probabilities for example, but it is still essentially working in terms of the same basic known unknown dichotomy 8. In contrast, explorative scenarios deal with different kinds of knowledge, ignorance and uncertainty, for example, socially constructed ignorance or‘uncomfortable knowledge'49. The identification of the motivation behind any scenario exercise appears to underpin the scenario typology described by Borjesön et al. 50, which reviews many other typologies before suggesting an alternative comprising three categories and six types. The categories arise from the kinds of question that a scenario user might use about the future: What will happen? What can happen? How can a specific target be reached? Each of these questions can be seen to evoke the motivation of a particular approach to scenarios. For example, in this typology What will happen? scenarios lead to predictive scenarios, in effect, forecasts, which look at what will happen as the likely development occurs. By contrast, What can happen? scenarios are concerned normative scenarios with achieving particular future objectives which lead to preserving and transforming scenarios. Preserving scenarios are used when the target can be met within an existing structure, while transforming scenarios feature a form of backcasting, asking what would need to be changed for the target futures to be achieved. Although most reviews of scenario techniques distinguish between quantitative and qualitative techniques, the boundaries between approaches have become increasingly blurred by techniques that make use of both kinds of methods and information 51. Hence, our brief overview of scenario techniques is intended not to provide a comprehensive classification or typology. Merely its role is to describe the variety of current techniques that are relevant for this paper. Table 1 Modes of thinking about the future. Source: adapted from Jørgensen 41. Modes of thinking Type of futures in focus Characteristics The predictive mode Probable futures Working with indications of what will happen. Trying to find the most likely development The eventualities mode Possible futures Openness to several different developments The visionary mode Preferable futures Envisioning how society can be designed in a better way 435 P . De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The concept of the multiple-axes method is based on one of the approaches used by Pierre Wack 52. It generates four contrasting scenarios relevant to a particular area of interest, which may be geographic or thematic, by placing a major factor influencing the future of the issue being investigated on each of the axes, which cross to form four quadrants if two axes are used. The factors chosen for the axes should be high-impact, high-uncertainty, and to ensure that the four spaces defined by their intersection are differentiated clearly. These spaces are developed then into scenario narratives reflecting the influence of other events and trends in addition to those represented on the two axes. Backcasting, inspired by the early work of Lovins 53, starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present. Backcasting scenarios explore the preconditions that could lead to this desirable future, including a palette of strategies to reach this situation 54. The concept of roadmapping has its roots in science and technology planning 55. A science or technology roadmap is like a highway roadmap that describes how one might proceed from a starting point to a final destination expressed as a vision. Like a highway roadmap shows the intersections between roads a science or technology roadmap also shows the intersections between scientific steps or technologies 56. A roadmap can take various forms, but generally comprises a time-based chart together with a number of layers, which provides a means to link technology and other resources to future products, as well as to innovation objectives and milestones 55. The Delphi method is developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method, which relies on a panel of experts. Delphi method is based on the assumption that group judgments are more valid than individual judgments. It is a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem. Key elements to accomplish this structured communication are: feedback of individual contributions of information and knowledge; an assessment of the group judgment or view; some level of opportunity for individuals to revise views; and anonymity for the individual responses 57. This technique is used often in national foresights to guide innovation and national research policies 58 60. All the above describe approaches to futures thinking during which (potential) inputs for scenarios can be produced. For example Delphi studies use statements about the future, roadmaps and backcasting use end-point states, while most of the other techniques described produce narratives or images of alternative future states. Practices are very diverse and often combinations of techniques 61. These types of approaches are typical of those used in our analysis (see Appendix 1 for an overview of the scenario cases. 4. Results and implications The value of scenarios lies in the robustness of the claims to knowledge within the process of the scenario development. As this knowledge is constructed (socially, an explicit reflexive account of the production of that knowledge is a methodological necessity, as it will reveal significant choices underlying the presented scenarios 61. To structure our research, the scenario cases are evaluated using the three complementary questions on policy change mentioned in Section 2 (Material and methods). An overview of our findings is summarized in the subsequent sub-sections (sub-sections 4. 1 4. 3). Each of these subsections includes a description of representation issues linked with the approach and methods used, input, process and main outcome. In addition, implications for practitioners are highlighted by elaborating elements of good practice and areas of improvement. 4. 1. Window of opportunity Leveraging the first perspective, i e. window of opportunity, we looked at scenarios as a tool to support planning and decision-making. Our analysis indicates contrasting motivations between developing and using future scenarios in the case studies from Appendix 1 . When the motivation is oriented towards developing scenarios, the focus tends to shift towards building consensus within the scenarios, missing the opportunity to explore the potential for innovation in conflicting views. Although legitimate for several reasons, for example building a common platform for dialogue, a focus on consensus can take up too much resources 62, with a risk of diluting a sense of urgency. In addition, our analysis indicates that scenarios with a strong focus on consensus during the development are often too vague and too broad for defining tangible innovation opportunities. By reshaping the scenarios to reach consensus, they are limited often to accepted statements about the obvious. Some examples of national foresights are known to have experienced problems linked with a dominance of consensus see for instance 63. This is in contrast with scenario exercises, where the motivation is oriented towards using the future scenarios for strategic discussions. The focus here is less on which scenarios are right but is oriented more to whether the scenarios delineate the range of possible futures appropriately 64. As documented by van der Heijden 65, the strategic discussion has its origin in uncertainty, both in the external environment and within the organization. Using inspirational scenarios (in this context, one could label them as simple in form but representing extreme uncertainties) can contribute strongly to triggering feelings of surprise and discovery. Responding to this emotive and cognitive disruption requires participants to think in ways that produce innovative and competitive solutions in a changing environment The DP21 scenarios (see Appendix 1) are a good example. To synthesize our findings for the first perspective, we distinguish two groups of scenario practice. We argue that dependent on the dominance of one of the two motivations (respectively a. developing and b. using scenarios) a different scenario process is shaped and different types of outcome are achieved. Identifying these two groups of scenario practice is neither a typology nor a comprehensive classification. The two motivations are connected to the perspective used in the analysis (i e. window of opportunity) and can be seen as a polarized view on this element of practice. Using a polarized view on motivations contributes in 436 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 our analysis a better understanding of the linkages between scenario design, methods used and related outcomes. For example, by analyzing the dominant motivation of the scenario cases we found a tension between incentives for consensus building and incentives for discovery. As an implication for practitioners, we recommend that careful design of scenario exercises is needed to achieve a balance between developing and using scenarios to strengthen the sense of urgency. 4. 2. Legitimacy for action Looking at the second perspective, i e. legitimacy for action, our analysis revealed three groups of scenario practice in the case studies from Appendix 1. The following sub-sections will describe the main characteristics for each of these three groups: sub-section 4. 2. 1 Framing boundaries, sub-section 4. 2. 2 Backcasting from targets and sub-section 4. 2. 3 Backcasting from principles. 4. 2. 1. Framing boundaries A first group of scenario practice is characterized by a focus on framing boundaries. The Prelude scenarios2 are a good example (see Appendix 1). An important input for the scenario work in this group are the comprehensive descriptions of the external drivers for change highlighting the uncertainty of future developments. This uncertainty is reflected in a distinguished set of possible long-term future images that are derived often from a multi-axes framework of the most important but uncertain drivers of change. Scenarios generated using the axes'process are explorative rather than normative; they tend to focus on the strategic level although additional layers of detail can subsequently be added. The value of the set of scenarios lays in the capacity to explore boundaries. This method is excellent for presenting a rich picture of multiple facets of a potential future: when an experienced scenario writer or film-maker is engaged at the final stage, the set of scenarios produced can be very persuasive, even to a non-specialist audience. Narratives are a natural, resonating way for people to communicate, and can be helpful in dealing with complexity, as pointed out by Weick 66. These narratives can create shared meanings and by doing so they legitimate the future since imaginations are owned by the individuals relating them 67. Creating awareness for the unforeseen is most often an important objective and desired outcome of this group of scenario practice. A technique underpinning these types of scenarios is described by Weiner & Brown 68 as the extremes that inform the middle. We found that adapting for change is often the general theme in the lessons learnt. Still, it is less obvious how these scenarios can be used for bridging today's decisions with the future images. We found that crystallizing concrete policy initiatives for innovation from long-term future images, i e. beyond twenty years, can be difficult. Most often, the scenarios are used to highlight important societal assets under threat. This links well with the concept of risk-society 69 and risk management. Our analysis suggests that this can be contributed partly to the selected process design for developing the scenarios. By having a strong focus on the external dimension (i e. outward reflection adapting for change is seen logically as the dominant response. In that sense the potential for innovation within the system (i e. inward reflection) is acknowledged less. When considered from the perspective of creating legitimacy for action we also suggest that the scenarios in this group could benefit fromcomplementary techniques connecting the long-term future images to the present via stepping stones. Using roadmaps is an example of such a complementary technique for linking scenarios with internal innovation capabilities (i e. inward reflection. This would help to address the imbalance between outward and inward reflection. Moreover, while participatory scenario-making provides visions for multiple futures, a roadmap only operates with one vision. Linking scenarios with technology roadmapping initiates an exploratory and creative phase to identify and understand uncertainties. Developing a set of scenarios acknowledges multiple rather than one future, equally plausible, whereas roadmapping provides a framework for condensing all information in one map and timeframe revealing windows of opportunity thus linking decision-making with future scenarios. The legitimizing aspect of this is the creation of a common understanding of challenges and establishing a common vision among the innovation stakeholders as a boundary framework before moving into technology roadmapping 70.4.2.2. Backcasting from targets A second group of scenario practice is characterized by a focus on backcasting from targets. Getting into the Right Lane for 2050 and AG2020 are good examples here (see Appendix 1). In this group, changes in the external environment are part of the scenarios. But in contrast with the first group, change is described less by framing very different long-term future worlds. Rather, the focus of the scenarios in the second group is oriented towards a sequence of clear targets linked with short-term stepping stones, i e. 5 10 year. Breaking up the long-term in more tangible time periods helps understand the necessary steps for embracing change. By mapping time we become clearer on where we have come from and where we are going. This‘roadmap'linking the necessary steps, contributes to the recognition that the long-term target is not only possible but also achievable. In addition, the interplay of the different contributions to achieve the targets becomes more visible. The foreseen outcome of long-term investments or policies, for example, can be visualized and confronted with a changing environment. Different from the above group, this one already leverages the combined use of roadmaps. We found that selecting areas for future opportunities are the general theme in the lessons learnt from this group. Often the focus is very much on elaborating areas of enhanced collaboration technological cooperation and converging technologies. Clearly innovation is an essential feature of the scenarios. 2 PRELUDE: PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe. 437 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The images of the future are focused on key internal developments (i e. inward reflection) and often driven by technology or changes in our way of living. Our analysis also suggests possible improvements for this group of scenario practice. Roadmaps directed towards a single target are likely to be inappropriate where policy intervention may direct technology towards a different trajectory altogether 70,71. The innovation potential of the scenarios can be strengthened through broadening the system boundaries and enriching the future images. Flexibility, either avoidance of surprises or fast utilization of sudden opportunities becomes one of the key issues. In order to avoid surprises the policy or strategy process should be able to open the scope of observation for periphery incidents and early, unstructured data that implicate potential discontinuities 72. In addition, including perspectives from the different stakeholders can reveal new areas for innovation 73.4.2.3. Backcasting from principles A third group of practice is characterized by a focus on backcasting from principles. A good example can be found with the scenario practice developed by the Natural Step3 (see for instance Givaudan case in Appendix 1). The focal points of the scenarios are sustainability concerns and criteria. The principles can be seen as indirect and implicit representations of the future. The future plays the role of the time needed to introduce the necessary changes to comply with the envisaged principles. The concept of change is an implicit part of the scenarios developed in backcasting from principles but the focus is less on delineating the range of possible futures and more on a preferable future vision. Interaction between the organization and the environment is seen as the main driver. This is often reflected in the outcomes envisioning a preferable future and experiments towards that future. Also for the third group of scenario practice, we suggest some areas of improvement with regard to legitimizing actions by adding a planning perspective via roadmaps or similar approaches. Comprehensive and well-designed roadmaps linking today's experiments with future images can improve the impact of the scenarios. In addition the success of the roadmaps can be tested for different possible future images. This will provide essential information about the robustness of the innovation potential. The 3rd SCAR foresight exercise (see Appendix 1) also falls into this group with its focus on research priorities and innovation to meet necessary change and uncertainties in the agri-food sector facing resource constrains and environmental limits. In the project report, the insights of the foresight exercise are used to articulate the research priorities. Still, the implementation could be improved with regards to knowledge dissemination e g. education and the scientific communities'involvement in policy discourse. 4. 3. Empowering stakeholders Developing and using future scenarios to inspire innovation do not only deal with the collection of data and models; they also involve the interaction of the stakeholders, their ideas, values and capacities for social change. Learning in such an interaction is not always an objective as such, but the process of exchanging knowledge is recognized to overcome some limits of conventional scenario practice 61. Looking at the third perspective, i e. empowering stakeholders, our analysis of the case studies from Appendix 1 revealed two groups of scenario practice: expert versus stakeholder driven. In several exercises, expert judgment was the main input for scenario development. Involvement of stakeholders was looked not intentionally for. In reality, this might lead to limitations. Firstly, the expert (i e. scientific) mind-set fosters expectations of regularity, simplicity and certainty in the phenomena and in our interventions 74. But these can inhibit the understanding of the problems and the use of appropriate methods to their solution 47. Secondly, while expertise has never been either as widespread or in such demand as today, public willingness to challenge that expertise has also never been as high. As a result of these two developments we argue that the difference between experts and the wider public has become less relevant whenever one speaks of users and producers of knowledge. Our analysis suggests that scenarios developed with broader stakeholder/expert participation will provide richer future images that go beyond the probable that is determined by the past and present 73,75. As opposed to past scenario practice, we believe there is often no clear cut difference between experts and stakeholders: experts sometimes have a stake in the problem or solution discussed and stakeholders equally have their expertise. It is a key challenge to benefit from this rich and complex audience. Also from this‘empowerment'perspective we suggest some areas of improvement. Stakeholder involvement, for instance, may be facilitated by conceptualizing the future as open and dilemmatic, and recognizing ambivalence as legitimate 76. Thus the scenario process can be seen as frame for dialogue, not to reach consensus but to recognize other parties'point of view. Recognition then, is a heuristic that leads away from conflict into a broader understanding of the complexity of a disputed subject 62. Although consensus can identify common grounds in contested territory it should not be the primary goal of scenario processes. Rather we suggest that developing and using scenarios should be viewed as a systemized negotiation process among key stakeholders (social actors), investigating and utilizing potential future societal changes and developments, see also 62,77. To synthesize this section on results and implications, we argue that our reflexive inquiry of the selected cases from Appendix 1 helped disclose several representation issues in scenario practice. Using a policy perspective, different groups of practice have been revealed. In the next section we will discuss our findings against the initial key question of how futures thinking and scenarios can help better cope with the grand challenges and how future scenarios can inspire innovation. 3 http://www. naturalstep. org/./438 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 5. Discussion Due to the social dynamic characteristic of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging 24. Following a policy perspective, however, there is lack of exploitation of innovative solutions for orienting innovation in itself along more sustainable pathways 15. For instance, there is a wide acceptance that the disconnection between economic growth and well-being is increasing. At the same time innovation has become one of the main engines of growth. However, these two overarching trends have not yet been reconciled 15. In this paper we argue that issues of representation have played a part in this lack of exploitation. For example when drivers of change are not only multiple but also mutable, it is not sensible to extrapolate the future fromdata and relationships of the past. Hence, it is important to recognize that representing scientific and technological diversity offers an important means to help foster more effective forms of innovation and promote social learning 78. This complexity challenges the capacity of innovation systems to acknowledge the social dimension of innovation and to learn from experience. It is accepted widely that a vision about the future is an essential element of a strategy 16,17. In addition, several scholars state that scenarios constitute a major tool for considering the future in strategic planning 18 21,22. The question that emerges is how we can learn from using and developing future scenarios to assist in the orientation of innovation systems? Developing and using scenarios can be considered a field of applied research, i e. where particular methods are applied to‘solve'particular puzzles. Particular choices and uses of techniques will be influenced by the context in which applications are made. Contextual features will include, among other things, the morphology or physiology of the domain, the purpose and theoretical premises of the study, the community of practice being informed and the values inherent in the process. In this sense, no single discipline or particular prescribed set of methods can be considered to be optimal. However, the commonality of scenario applications is the orientation to the future and that the knowledge produced is uncertain. Therefore being a professional practice to support significant decisions, developing and using scenarios need to be more assured of its claims to knowledge 61. Following a reflexive inquiry methodology in the analysis of the scenario cases listed in Appendix 1, three complementary questions on policy change are applied to analyze scenario practice:(i) How can developing and using future scenarios present a window of opportunity to effectively drive decisions?;(ii) How can developing and using future scenarios enhance the legitimacy for action?;and (iii) How can developing and using future scenarios provide evidence to decision-makers empowering the stakeholders involved?.By questioning representation from a policy perspective and deconstructing future scenario practice, we were able to (re) construct findings to the above questions:(i) if a sense of urgency was established or was lacking (window of opportunity),(ii) what was and was represented not (legitimacy for action) and (iii) who was and who was involved not (empowering stakeholders). An overview of our findings is presented in Table 2 that describes for each group of practice (sub-sections 4. 1 4. 3) the most common images of the future, an example of a characteristic technique and the dominant mode of futures thinking. By doing so, we are able to link issues of representation with groups of scenario practice. Table 2 is a synthesis of our results and implications of the previous section. Instead of framing practice based on theory, future scenario practice is deconstructed into seven groups. These seven groups are linked further to the most characteristic theoretical premises here expressed as modes of futures thinking. For example, we argue that a strong focus on developing scenarios and consensus increases a risk of diluting a sense of urgency. During the scenario exercise, consensus may not be appropriate to promote differences and to stimulate novel ideas. Based on this observation (sub-section 4. 1), two groups of practice can be distinguished: one group using scenarios as the most characteristic feature, and another group with developing scenarios as the most characteristic feature. For these two groups, the scenario cases have been analyzed to disclose elements of theoretical premises. In the first group, we found that the scenarios are used for supporting strategic discussions about futures that are shaped by surprise and confrontation. Examples of supportive techniques are the use of an uncertainty matrix and the multi-axes method using factors of high uncertainty and high impact. Based on our reflexive inquiry used to analyze scenario exercises in their context we can then attribute the most characteristic mode of thinking. 4 Innovation is not only about invention, creation, or discovery, it is also about adaptation and emergence of new innovation systems 31. Principles on how to orient innovation systems through future scenarios will require conditions for collaboration. Table 2 Linking groups of future scenario practice from a policy perspective with modes of future thinking. Policy perspective (representation) Scenario practice (most characteristic) Types of futures (main focus) Techniques (example) Modes of futures thinking Window of opportunity (sense of urgency) Using scenarios Shaped by surprise and confrontation Uncertainty matrix Intuitive Developing scenarios Shaped by convention Consensus (Delphi) Convention Legitimacy for action (what) Framing boundaries Shaped by possibility Extreme to inform the middle Eventuality Backcasting from targets Shaped by probability S&t Roadmaps Predictive Backcasting from principles Shaped by preference The natural step Visionary Empowering stakeholders (who) Expert driven Shaped by expertise and discovery Expert panels Technocratic Stakeholder driven Shaped by interaction Future workshops Evolutionary 4 The groups are intended not to be) a typology. Each of the case elements and aspects of different groups are present, therefore it is not possible to link groups with cases query. However, as described in the previous section, for each of the groups an example (s) of good practice from Appendix 1 is included in the text. 439 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The solutions developed should be socially reflexive and negotiated by the key actors 79. However, it is also crucial to keep in mind the limitations of the scenario methodology 80. Clearly, scenarios do not point to simple short-cuts into a more sustainable future 64. Table 3 provides a brief description for each of the 7 dominant modes of futures thinking. For each of the modes of future thinking, we also include information on the proposed effects on or contributions to the enablers for orientating innovation systems through future scenarios (i e. pros and cons). Our analysis of the case studies listed in Appendix 1 suggests that a variety of modes of futures thinking, as articulations of theoretical premises, can be distinguished in future scenario practice. In addition, we abstracted different dominant modes of futures thinking linked within different groups. In reality, each scenario exercise is a mixture of different modes and practice is shaped by the image (s) of the future and the techniques applied. Combinations of techniques are possible and can be found in our case studies and in literature, see for instance 71,81. To strengthen the enablers for innovation within the scenario process, the link between practice and theory, represented via the modes of futures thinking should be acknowledged when designing and implementing future scenario exercises. As described in Section 4 (results and implications) cross-fertilizations between the techniques of the different groups can enhance the innovation potential. However, no single recipe exists and our recommendations should be seen as‘design principles'.'Hence, the benefits from combining techniques for each of the groups become also clear from a theoretical point of view when looking at combination possibilities of the modes of futures thinking in Table 3. To synthesize, we argue that future scenarios developed with a combination of well-designed modes of futures thinking will provide richer future images that go beyond the probable that is determined by the past and present. This enhanced support is needed, because as Hauschildt 82 clearly states: the success of innovation is to a great extent dependent upon the activities and abilities of individuals who enthusiastically support it. 6. Conclusions In this paper we analyzed and discussed the applicability of future scenarios as narratives to represent different perspectives on present and future developments. Our use of a reflexive methodological approach with three complementary questions on policy change, supported the grouping of different approaches of developing and using future scenarios as a tool for orienting innovation systems. Our analyses of the scenario case studies from Appendix 1 revealed elements of good practice and implications on how to better address innovation through future scenarios. For instance different modes of futures thinking have been identified through the process of deconstruction. In this paper, we argue that these modes of futures thinking are shown to contribute in different ways to orientating innovation systems. Hence, by using a reflexive methodology we were able to create a heuristic to learn from the process of developing and using scenarios. In addition, we also identified some points of departure for further refinement of current scenario practices with respect to innovation. Firstly, and summarizing our recommendations for future scenario practice, we suggest that representation issues (i e. what is, and what is represented not in the scenarios, who was and who was involved not, and whether a sense of urgency was established or was lacking) are an important feature in the design and application of future scenario practice. In this paper we argue that the limits of current practice are to a certain extent linked with representation issues. As acknowledged in the previous sections (see also Tables 2 and 3), cross-fertilization between scenario approaches and techniques, such as framing boundaries, roadmapping, and backcasting from principles can strongly enhance practice by enhancing representation. We also want to Table 3 Different modes of futures thinking for orienting innovation systems via future scenarios. Modes of futures thinking Future scenarios shaped by Underpinning Logic pros and cons with respect to orient innovation systems Intuitive Surprise and confrontation Think the unthinkable and conceptualize future situations where uncertainties are high Allows strong imagination including alternative futures that are competing Weak on acceptance, especially by decision-makers Conventional Convention Agree on common accepted probabilities of change (rejecting extreme ideas) Strong on acceptance and alignment, but often too vague, too broad to inspire innovation Eventuality Possibility Explore contrasting futures and conceptualize future situations for the long-term where uncertainties are expressed differently Allows rigorously exploring boundaries and complexity. Often an imbalance between outward/inward reflection limiting the recognition of its internal innovation capacity Predictive Probability Better contextualize what we know to be prepared for upcoming situations Allows defining (a sequence of) clear steps for innovation Weak on surprise and external change Visionary Preference Envision how society can be designed in a better (e g. more sustainable) way Allows creating authentic alternative visions to guide innovation Weak on clear targets, surprise and external change Technocratic Expertise and discovery Demonstrate technical feasibility and optimize technological development Allows minimizing inconsistencies and defining areas for innovation Weak on complexity of socio-technological systems Evolutionary Interaction Engage in sustainable pathways enabling transformations of innovation systems Allows a systemized negotiation process linking a variety of social actors and creating the conditions for innovation Risk of not reaching out to key (technological) actors 440 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 acknowledge the limits of our analysis: i e. using a policy perspective for doing an ex-post analysis of future scenario practice. Innovation systems are complex and dynamic and scenario practice is applied more widely than our sample. Therefore, when using reflexivity in research or in scenario practice, it is also essential to make one's perspective clear so that the claims to knowledge can be critiqued constructively and improved. Secondly, we argue that the use of cooperative strategies, i e. participatory scenario analysis, is required to produce a variety of possible, and not only probable or desired futures among the actors that develop, diffuse, and use innovations. Learning of participants is not always an objective as such, but the process of exchanging knowledge is recognized to overcome some limits of conventional research, particularly as far as grand challenges are concerned. Hence, we believe that developing and using scenarios should be viewed as a systemized negotiation process among key stakeholders (social actors), investigating and utilizing potential future societal changes and developments. This integrated approach, i e. integrating different modes of futures thinking, is needed for orienting innovation along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems. However, a variety of representation issues exist and more experiments and research are needed. Thirdly, we want to emphasize that the social dimension in innovation systems should be acknowledged as a legitimate research area and linkages with social innovators and other social innovation stakeholders should be strengthened so that social innovation experiments inform the research community. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the COST Action A22 network, IPTS and different past and present foresight network initiatives such as the European foresight Platform and Forlearn for organizing creative discussion platforms on foresight and scenario initiatives. The constructive comments of the anonymous reviewers were very helpful to better focus and shape this paper. Appendix 1. Overview of the case studies 1. AG2020 DG RTD (2011 Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets (2020) and Europe. www. ag2020. org 2. Danish Technology foresight on Environmentaall Friendly Agriculture K. Borch,(in press) The Danish Technology foresight on Environmentally Friendly Agriculture, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press 3. DP21 DP21 (2003), Dierlijke Productie & Consumptie in de 21ste eeuw. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. kbs-frb. be/uploadedfiles/KBS-FRB/Files/NL/PUB 1338 DP21 STAKEHOLDERS. pdf. 4. Duwobo Duwobo (2010), Transitiemanagement duurzaam wonen en bouwen. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. duwobo. be/index. cfm. 5. 2nd SCAR Foresight exercise EC (2008), New challenges for agricultural research: climate change, food security, rural development, agricultural knowledge systems. The 2nd SCAR Foresight exercise. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/scar 2nd foresight exercise en. pdf 6. 3rd SCAR Foresight exercise EC (2011), Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world. 3rd Foresight exercise. European commission DG RTD, Directorate E Unit E. 4, Brussel. 7. Prelude EEA (2006) Prelude (PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe) scenarios. Available at http://www. eea. europa. eu/multimedia/interactive/prelude-scenarios/prelude. 8. The world in 2025 European commission (2009 The world in 2025. Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition. Research*eu, Brussels. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/theworrldin-2025-report en. pdf. 9. Givaudan Givaudan (2011) Sustainability, translating vision into action. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at www. givaudan. com. 10. Research Dialogue in Germany E. Göll, Futur the Research Dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 11. eforesee Malta L a. Pace,(in press) Strategic planning for the Future: Malta's eforesee Experience, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 12. Getting into the Right Lane for 2050 PBL & Stockholm Resilience Centre (2009), Getting into the Right Lane for 2050. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven, NL. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at www. pbl. nl/en. 13. Denmark Green Technology foresight M. S. Jørgensen, Case Denmark Green Technology foresight, Phase 1, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 14. COOL Project S. Stalpers, C. Kroeze, Dialogues in the COOL Project, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 15. Four scenarios for Europe. UNEP/RIVM (2003. Four scenarios for Europe. Based on UNEP's third Global Environment Outlook. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://www. unep. org/geo/GEO3/pdfs/four scenarios europe. pdf. 16. Buiten de lijnen VLM (2009) Buiten de lijnen. Vlaamse Land Maatschappij, Brussel. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. vlm. be/Sitecollectiondocuments/Publicaties/Platteland/VLM BROCHURE DEF. pdf. 17. Vision 2050: The new agenda for business. WBCSD (2010) Vision 2050: The new agenda for business. World Business Council for Sustainable development, Washington. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://www. wbcsd. org/web/vision2050. htm. 441 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 References 1 C. Harries, Correspondence to what? Coherence to what? What is based good scenario decision-making? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70 (2003) 797 817.2 S. C. H. Greeuw, M. B. A. van Asselt, J. Grosskurth, C a m. H. Storms, N . Rijkens-Klomp, D. S. Rothman, J. Rotmans, Cloudy Crystal Balls, An Assessment of Recent European and Global Scenario Studies And Models, Experts'Corner Report: Prospects and Scenarios 4, European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000.3 T. Fuller, P. De Smedt, D. Rothman, Advancing foresight methodology through networked conversation, in: Proceedings of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making-Seville 28 29,september 2006, 2006.4 H. S. Becker, Scenarios: a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 23 (1983) 95 120.5 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.6 P. D. Andersen, M. Borup, K. Borch, J. Kaivo-oja, A. Eerola, T. Finnfjörnsson, E. Øverland , E. A. Eriksson, T. Malmér, B. A. Mölleryd, Foresight in Nordic innovation systems, Nordic Innovation Centre, Oslo, 2007.7 T. J. Chermack, Studying scenario planning: theory research suggestions and hypotheses, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 72 (2005) 59 73.8 A. Wilkinson, E. Eidinow, Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new scenario typology, Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008. 9 M. Boden, C. Cagnin, V. Carabias, K. Haegeman, T. Konnola, Facing the Future: Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, EUR 24364 EN, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010. http://ftp. jrc. es/EURDOC/JRC55981. pdf). 10 C. Cagnin, E. Amanatidou, M. Keenan, Orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), FTA for Structural and Systemic transformations in Response to Grand Societal Challenges: Integrating Insights, Transforming Institutions and Shaping Innovation systems, Seville, 12 13,may 2011, 2011.11 A. Webster, Technologies in transition, policies in transition: foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (1999) 413 421.12 H. Linstone, On discounting the future, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 4 (1973) 335 338.13 B. Adam, Futures transformed. Last accessed on 31/01/12 and available at http://www. cardiff. ac. uk./socsi/futures/wp ba futurestransformed231006. pdf 2006.14 A. Timmermans, Arenas as institutional sites for policy-making: patterns and effects in comparative perspective, J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 3 (2001) 311 337.15 OECD, Fostering innovation to address social challenges, in: Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011.16 EC, Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2011. Executive Summary) European commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, 2011.17 G. Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, 1994.18 R. Bradfield, G. Wright, G. Burt, G. Cairns, K. Van der Heijden, The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning, Futures 37 (2005) 795 812.19 M. Godet, Integration of scenarios and strategic management: using relevant, consistent, and likely scenario, Futures 22 (1990) 730 739.20 M. Lindgren, H. Bandhold, Scenario planning: The Link Between Future and Strategy, Palgrave Macmillan, New york, 2003.21 M. E. Porter, Competitive advantage, Free Press, New york, 1985.22 G. Ringland, The role of scenarios in strategic foresight, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 1493 1498.23 I. Wilson, From scenario thinking to strategic action, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 65 (2000) 23 29.24 B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén, A. Rickne, Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues, Res. Policy 31 (2002) 233 245.25 T. Rickards, The future of innovation research, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003.26 L. Gunderson, C. Folke, M. A. Janssen, Reflective practice, Ecol. Soc. 12 (2007) 40 (online URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol12/iss2/art40/./27 A l. Cunliffe, Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities, Hum. Relat. 56 (2003) 983 1003.28 M. Alvesson, K. Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research Towards a Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London, 2000.29 P. De Smedt, Interactions between foresight and decision-making, in: Proceedings of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29,september 2006, 2006.30 H. Lawson, Reflexivity, The Postmodern Predicament, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.31 J . F. Coates, Future innovations in science and technology, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, 2003.32 C. Leadbeater, We-Think: The Power of Mass Creativity, Profile Books, London, 2008.33 C. Freeman, The national system of innovation in historical perspective, Camb. J. Econ. 19 (1995) 5 24.34 In: B. A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.35 R. Nelson, S. Winter, In search of a useful theory of innovation, Res. Policy 6 (1977) 36 76.36 L. K. Mytelka, K. Smith, Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process, Res. Policy 14 (2002) 1 13.37 R. Sternberg, J. Pretz, J. Kaufman, Types of innovation, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003.38 In: C. Edguist (Ed.),System of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter publishers, London, 1997.39 B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz, On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems, J. Evol. Econ. 1 (1991) 93 118.40 M. P. Hekkert, R. A a. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R. E. H. M . Smits, Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analyzing technological change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74 (2007) 413 432.41 M. S. Jørgensen, Visions and visioning in foresight activities, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future. The role of interaction in foresight. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 42 42 K. H. Dreborg, Scenarios and structural uncertainty, explorations in the field of sustainable transport, Doctoral thesis, KTH Infrastructure , Stockholm, 2004.43 P. J. Beers, A. Veldkamp, F. Hermans, D. van Apeldoorn, J. M. Vervoort, K. Kok, Future sustainability and images, Futures 42 (2010) 723 732.44 C. Selin, Time matters: temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks, Time Soc. 15 (2006) 121 139.45 M. Aaltonen, Multi-ontology, sense-making and the emergence of the future, Futures 41 (2009 ) 279 283.46 A. Marchais-Roubelat, F. Roubelat, Futures beyond disruptions, Futures 43 (2011) 130 133.47 S. A. van't Klooster, M. B. A. van Asselt, Accommodating or compromising change? A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios, Futures 43 (2011) 86 98.48 P. W. F. van Notten, J. Rotmans, M. B. A . van Assel, D. S. Rothman, An updated scenario typology, Futures 35 (2003) 423 443.49 S. Rayner, Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses, Econ. Soc. 41 (2012) 107 125.50 L. Borjesön, M. Hojer, K.-H. Dreborg, T. Ekvall, G. Finnveden, Scenario types and techniques: towards a user's guide, Futures 38 (2006) 723 739.51 E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests, Landsc. Urban Plan. 47 (2000) 65 77.52 P. J. H. Schoemaker, Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking, Sloan Manag. Rev. 25 (1995) 40.53 A. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace, Friends of the Earth International, San francisco, 1977.231 pp..54 J. Rotmans, M. B. A. van Asselt, C. Anastasi, S. Greeuw, J. Mellors, S. Peters, D. Rothman, N. Rijkens , Visions for a sustainable Europe, Futures 32 (2000) 809 831.55 R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, D. Probert, T-plan. The Fast Start to Technology Roadmapping, Planning Your Route to Success, Centre for Technology management, Ifm University of Cambridge, 2001.56 T. J. Gordon, S&t roadmapping, in: J. C. Glenn, T. J. Gordon (Eds. Futures research methodology, Version 2. 0 AC/UNU Millennium Project, American Council for the United nations University, Washington D c.,US, 2003.57 In: H. Linstone, M. Turoff (Eds. The Delphi method, 2002,(Last accessed 31/01/12 and available at http://www. is. njit. edu/pubs/delphibook. 442 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 58 J. P. Gavigan, F. Scapolo, A comparison of national foresight exercises, Foresight 1 (1999) 495 517.59 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, J. Cassingena, I. Miles, R. Popper, The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2008.60 T. Webler, D. Levine, H. Rakel, D. Renn, A novel approach to reducing uncertainty the group Delphi, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 39 (1991) 253 263.61 T. Fuller, P. De Smedt, From oracles to dialogue, in: Proceedings of the Third International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impacts and Implications for Policy and Decision-making Seville 16 17,october 2008, 2008.62 K. Borch, F. Mérida, Dialogue in foresight: consensus and negotiation, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 63 E. Göll, Futur-the research dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 64 A. Geyer, F. Scapolo, European manufacturing in transition the challenge of sustainable development: four scenarios 2015 2020, Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 6 (2004) 331 343.65 K. van der Heijden, Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, Wiley, Chichester, 1996.66 K. Weick, Sense-Making in Organizations, Sage, London, 1995.67 S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies, Futures 22 (1990) 115 141.68 E. Weiner, A. Brown, Future Think: How to Think Clearly in a Time of Change, Pearson, Prentice hall, New york, 2006.69 U. Beck, Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995.70 L. M. Ricard, K . Borch, From Future scenarios to Roadmapping: Guiding Exploratory Innovation and Strategy, the 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: 12 & 13,may 2011, May 13 2011.71 O. Saritas, J. Aylen, Using scenarios for roadmapping: the case of clean production, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 1061 1075.72 L. Ilmola, O. Kuusi, Filters of weak signals hinder foresight: monitoring weak signals efficiently in corporate decision-making, Futures 38 (2006) 908 924.73 C. Prell, K. Hubacek, M. S. Reed, C. Quinn, N. Jin, J . Holden, T. P. Burt, M. Kirby, J. Sendzimir, If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building, Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 32 (2007) 1 20.74 S. Funtowicz, J. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (1993) 735 755.75 A. Jetter, W . Schweinfort, Building scenarios with fuzzy cognitive maps: an exploratory study of solar energy, Futures 43 (2011) 52 66.76 B. Höijer, R. Lidskog, Y. Uggla, Facing dilemmas: sense-making and decision-making in late modernity, Futures 38 (2006) 350 366.77 P. De Smedt, Can Negotiating the Future Influence Policy and Social change? Paper Presented at the Future seminar of the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, 7th of June, 2007, in: June 7th 2007.78 A. Stirling, A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society, J. R. Soc. Interface 4 (2007) 707 719.79 P. Goodwin, Spanning boundaries: social innovation in a complex world, in: OECD (Ed.),Fostering Innovation to Address Social challenges, Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011, pp. 59 64.80 M. Godet, The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 65 (2000) 3 22.81 T. J. B. M. Postma, F. Liebl, How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 72 (2005) 161 173.82 J. Hauschildt, Promoters and champions in innovations: development of a research paradigm, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003. Peter De Smedt has a background in ecological system analyses. His professional challenge is connecting science and policy. On a broad range of regional and EU projects, involving foresight and integrated assessment, Peter worked together with experts and stakeholders towards achieving a common understanding on non-sustainable trends, offering scenarios and integrated solutions to support policy-makers. Currently Peter works at the Research centre of the Flemish Government where he is in charge of foresight and sustainability assessment. Kristian Borch has a background in biochemistry and conflict management. His field of interest is socio-technological aspects such as uncertainty ethics and sustainability, of emerging technologies mainly inside agriculture, food production, biotechnology and bioenergy. Furthermore, he is an expert in foresight and scenario methodologies, where his interests are focused on how to handle trans-disciplinary conflicts and scientific uncertainty. Currently Kristian is Head of Section in the Department of Management Engineering (DTU Man) at the Technical University of Denmark. Ted Fuller is a business academic and currently Director of research for the Faculty of business and Law at the University of Lincoln (UK). ) He is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategic foresight. His academic mission is to understand how futures are created and to develop responsible people who can create futures. 443 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443

< Back - Next >

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