Embedding foresight in transnational research programming Totti Ko nno la 1, *and Karel Haegeman2 1 Impetu Solutions, Vi'ctor Andre's Belaunde, 36-4c, 28016 Madrid, Spain 2european Commission, JRC-IPTS, Edificio EXPO , C/Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville, Spain*Corresponding author. Email: totti. konnola@impetusolutions. com. The complexity of transnational research programming and the requisite large-scale stakeholder engagement set a major managerial challenge: how to prepare, run and evaluate such activities in an effective, efficient and appropriate as well as transparent, open and inclusive manner. To address such co-ordination challenges we specify dimensions of transnational, vertical, horizontal and temporal co-ordination and apply them to three cases of foresight processes in connection with transnational research programming. This provides some evidence on a potentially significant role for foresight in facilitating and integrating different functions of programming but also shows major challenges in foresight design and management, which we address by way of elaborating guiding foresight principles of scalability, modularity and flexibility. We also consider the potential role of foresight in joint programming in Europe and in transnational research programming elsewhere. Keywords: transnational research co-operation; foresight; joint programming. 1. Introduction Science and scientists have crossed the national borders of individual states for many years. International research collaboration has become a daily business together with the pace of globalisation. In this respect, more collaborattio in research programming across borders makes sense in terms of avoiding duplication, reaching a critical mass and detecting gaps, while too much co-ordination may lead to a decrease in competition. In Europe, a lot of room exists for increasing collaboration between the research funding activities of Member States. Around 85%of all civil public research in Europe is financed still programmmed monitored and evaluated at national level (European commission 2008. Another driver for more collaboration is the increasing pressure in Europe1 and other parts of the world2 for research and innovation to both support competitiveness3 and offer solutions to global and local societal challenges. However, despite clear drivers for collaboration, there are also major challennge and barriers. In this paper we address such challenges and examine some recent European experiences using foresight as a co-ordination tool embedded in the facilitation of transnational research collaboration. In Section 2 we look more in detail at the challenge of coordinating transnational programming and propose a co-ordination approach to address this challenge. Section 3 applies the approach to some empirical observations on recent cases of transnational programming. From there possible foresight principles in the context of transnational research programming are discussed, as well as the role foresight can play as an integrator of programming functioons The paper also looks at the implications for transnatiiona programming in Europe and elsewhere. Finally, it draws conclusions for foresight in transnational research programming. 2. Co-ordination of transnational programming The co-ordination of cross-national public research involves a set of challenges in bridging potentially Science and Public policy 39 (2012 ) pp. 191 207 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs020 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. permissions@oup. com conflicting, or at least diverging, interests. A first tension is the trade-off between basic and exploratory research on the one hand, and applied and societal problem-solving oriented research on the other hand. This is particularly relevant for research performed at universities, where academic freedom has traditionally been a basic principle, and which now experiences increasing pressure to contribuut to innovation strategies and to engage more with business and the wider society. Within the focus of problem-solving oriented research a second source of tensions relates to different viewpoints between scientists and policy-makers. Based on experiences in the identificatiio of European Joint Programming Initiatives Seiser (2010) identifies eight tensions in research priority setting from the point-of-view of policy-makers and scientists (see Table 1). A third set of tensions relates to the multi-disciplinary and multilevel complexity of societal challenges. As current governance systems are incapable of tackling current and future, interconnected, global challennge (Ko nno la et al. 2012), more alignment is needed on four dimensions: between national research systems, horizonttall between disciplines and policy areas, vertically across governance levels (from local to global) and over time (see Section 2. 2) . If effective research and innovation are seen as part of the solution to these tensions, they also require alignment along these dimensions. Transnational research co-operation in itself is also very diverse. Gnamus (2009) proposes eight levels in internatioona science and technology (S&t) co-operation (see Fig. 1). This paper will focus on level four‘programme co-operation and co-ordination'.'The different levels defined by Gnamus are not mutually exclusive, activities and different levels can coexist within transnational co-operation between nations. Within the EU initiatives between Member States exist on all eight levels and all are part of the same research and innovation system. Co-ordination of research and innovation activities therefore needs to take into account possible links between different levels of transnational co-operation. For instance, some programmes may require joint infrastruuctur investments, innovation clusters may benefit from links with coordinated programmes. Positioning programme co-operation and co-ordination within this wider perspective shows the importance of aligning collaboraatio between different levels of S&t co-operation. All in all the context of transnational research programming tends to be highly complex and uncertain, and different stakeholders take part with diverse expectatiion and capacities. Dealing with this complexity requires co-ordination tools that are able to address the above-mentioned potential tensions. In the search for such tools we first take a look at key functions in research programming, the dimensions of co-ordination and related barriers. 2. 1 Key functions in research programming and related barriers The implementation of transnational research programmiin builds largely on programming practices executed at national level. Transnational programmes require similar type of operational functions in their setting up running and evaluation. For instance, in connection with joint programming (see Section 4. 3) six framework conditions have been defined:.peer review procedures. forward-looking activities. evaluation of joint programmes. funding of cross-border research. optimum dissemination and use of research findings. protection, management and sharing of intellectual property rights (CEC 2010) In the ERA NET scheme a four-step approach is applied4 (Matrix-Rambøll 2009). A survey among ERA NET participants under the Sixth Framework programme indicaate that the main activities other than joint calls/programmes that ERA NET participants engaged in, included:.developing an action plan to deal with common strateegi issues and to prepare for joint activities (75%).%undertaking benchmarking initiatives and putting in place common schemes for monitoring and evaluation (67%).%co-ordination or clustering of ongoing nationally funded research projects (59%.%generating multinational evaluation procedures (55%)(Matrix-Rambøll 2009. For the purpose of this paper we define five key functions in transnational research programming, each facing a number of barriers on policy, programming and project levels (see Table 2). Table 1. Tensions in transnational research priority setting between science and policy-making, based on experiences with identification of joint programming initiatives. Based on Seiser (2010) Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of science Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of policy-making Bottom-up Top-down More focus on scientific frontier Feeding existing clientele Risk taking for new discoveries Risk averse Priority setting by peers Priority setting by diplomacy Long-term perspective Time pressure Simplified yet sustainable funding Juste retoura Institutional barriers Institutional power play Excellence rather than relevance Relevance rather than excellence ajuste retour means that member states get approximately the same amount back in research grants as they contribute. 192. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman 2. 2 Dimensions of co-ordination of transnational research programming The challenges of transnational research collaboration have been addressed for decades, and many instances of its use exist today. For instance in Europe knowledgeshaarin platforms offer tools, good practices and informattio on the current (through mapping of existing programmes), planned (through policy documents) and possible future7 state of research priority setting and research systems. In the EU platforms exist at regional8 (e g. Smart Specialisation Platform9 national (e g. ERAWATCH10) and transnational (e g. NETWATCH11) level, each offering some of the functionalities mentioned above. Table 2. Key functions in transnational research programming and related barriers Function Description Key barriers5 Scoping and initial commitments Scoping is initiated by the systematic analysis and sense-making of the context, and followed by the identification of research/innovation topics and societal challenges. Programme design and initial funding commitments are made, appropriaat processes for transnational programming are initiated Differences in priorities between policy-makers and researchers Different public financing and auditing mechanisms (vertical vs. horizontal grants, loans, tax reductions etc. National regulations constraining funding to national activities Differences in national funding rules Uncertainty at national level of rewards of collaboration Inequality of investment makes it impractical to design joint programmes Programme is designed to address country-specific issues Insufficient knowledge of similar national programmes in other countries Lack of budgetary flexibility Lack of mutual trust Source of funding does not encourage use of funds for transnatiiona activities Language and culture diversity makes opening programmes impractical6 Calls, proposals and peer review Calls for proposals are prepared and disseminated in order to receive project proposals, which becomes a subject of peer review and finally selecctio of projects to be funded with a transnatiiona programme Insistence on using national peer review rules Different national practices in form, focus guidance and ways to respond to call Different expertise levels among participants to work with (online) application forms Limited experience/capacity in pan-European collaboration Lack of common technological basis Differences in scientific excellence Calls are lacking an agreed transnational programme and only reflect national programmes that contain mutual issues Running and monitoring Running a transnational programme is a subject of effective administration and execution of projects. Monitoring refers to ongoing control and evaluation of project performance Financial administration systems are designed not to cope with non-national contracts No shared points of contact/project ideas Differences in speed of implementation National differences in training for graduate students and postdoctoora fellows involved in transnational research Different assumptions and expectations about how work and interacttion should be conducted Differences in legal and regulatory systems Intellectual property (IP) and use of results IP issues are addressed within transnational framewoor in order to have mutual agreement on use of results Difficulties to fund projects where a company from abroad receives all the IP rights Differences in open access (OA) policies (such as existing incentivves laws and legal provisions supporting OA; OA policies from national funding bodies, universities and research centers; references to OA in grant agreements) Problems of oversight related to research integrity Evaluation Evaluation of transnational programme refers to appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency in execution of entire programme and its parts Differences in practices and level (project, call, programme level) of evaluation Timescales of national evaluation processes may vary considerably Differences in experience in monitoring, evaluation and learning-based policy-making Lack of national support to fund longer-term collaboration in evaluation Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 193 European experiences and ongoing initiatives in transnatiiona research co-ordination12 also provide many opportunities for mutual learning. The instruments and tools used by one mechanism can be useful in supporting others. 13 But this variety of mechanisms also constitutes an important additional co-ordination challenge as initiatives undertaken in one mechanism may have importaan links with initiatives from other mechanisms. An example is the co-operation between ERA NETS and European technology platforms (Niehoff and Andersdotter 2007. Also lessons from other levels of S&t co-operation (see Fig. 1) are valuable for transnational programming. For instance, at the level of international research infrastructures, issues like prioritisation criteria, funding, governance, evaluation and impact assessment are being discussed in Europe (European commission 2010a). At the level of innovation clusters the recently established first knowledge and innovation communities (KICS) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) also face issues of governance, prioritisaatio and evaluation. A recent evaluation14 of the EIT proposes to put in place‘robust procedures developed through a mutual learning process with the existing KICS'.'The further development of transnational research and innovation collaboration is likely to benefit from conceptuua demarcation of different dimensions of the challenges. Ko nno la et al. 2011) identified two challenges:.vertical co-ordination. horizontal co-ordination We elaborate on this work and add two further dimensions:.alignment of national research systems. temporal dimension in co-ordination 2. 2. 1 Alignment of research systems. Nations or regions aiming to collaborate in research programming often face strong differences of varying nature in the way their respective national research systems are built up (Optimat et al. 2005; Anderson 2010. These include: structuura differences in national programme orientation15 and implementation orientation, 16 diversity of programme funding organisations; the distribution of research across research performers, 17 differences in cross-sector collaborattio (e g. university industry collaboration) and in the degree of control of governments over research agendas; 18 varying levels of interest at national level for collaborating beyond borders and the openness of current programmes to other nations. This diversity of national programmes and their implementation raised major obstacles against establisshin optimal transnational programmes. Anderson (2010) also points to the importance of legal and regulatory systems, oversight related to research integrity, and the training of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, when conducting research collaboration. 2. 2. 2 Vertical co-ordination of multilayered research systems. The OECD (2003) has identified vertical coherennc as a general long-term policy objective ensuring that the practices of agencies authorities and autonomous Mobility and exchange of scientists Programme cooperation and coordination Institutional cooperation Project cooperation Exchange of S&t information Innovation/knowledge clusters 2 3 4 5 6 7 Knowledge exchange Knowledge clustering Level of strategic approach to S&t cooperation Degree of networking Joint infrastructure investments No instruments no cooperation 0 1 Comprehensive strategic cross-policy/sector partnerships 8 Figure 1. Development phases of international S&t co-operation (Gnamus 2010. 194. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman bodies, as well as the behaviour of sub-national levels of government, are mutually reinforcing and coherent with overall policy commitments. Historically, research policies have emerged through development paths that reflect the societal contexts of their path-dependent technoinstittutiona co-evolution. They have evolved also over a long period of time and are thus extraordinarily stable. At present, research and innovation policies are challenged by global market conditions where Member States, regions or even industrial or local clusters compete for critical resourrces such as knowledge, human resources, and foreign RTD investments (Kaiser and Prange 2004). Indeed, today the research system is an integral part of the prevailing multilayered innovation system. Ko nno la et al. 2011) consider experiences from vertical co-ordination between local, regional and (international levels providing significant insights into the challennge of managing multilayered research and innovation systems. Such challenges have been related to the systemic nature of innovation (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), performmanc of innovation systems (Lundvall 1992; Edquist 1997), and processes of regionalisation (Kaiser and Prange 2004), which have resulted together in complex multilayered policies especially in Europe. The articulation of thematic priorities for transnational research and innovation co-operation, e g. from EU level, raises issues related to their coherence with the priorities and needs of lower levels of governance, particularly in terms of consultation of national, regional and local authorities. Such programmes are implemented in different countries with different priorities. They either complement national and regional policies or become a replacement policy framework in some fields (e g. in the case of new EU Member States). Given such diversity it may be claimed that achieving an overall multilevel policy consistennc will never be possible while policy co-ordination can only assume soft forms (Reid et al. 2007). 2. 2. 3 Horizontal co-ordination between research and other policy areas. Ko nno la et al. 2011) note that successful research and innovation processes can be facilitated by horizontal co-ordination between research and other policy areas (such as competition, regional, financial, employment and education policies). In effect, the adoption of innovation as a crosscutting policy objectivvewhich is prominent even in sectorally oriented policies holds promise for the closer integration of innovattio and other policies. In more general terms, the OECD (2003) has called for horizontal coherence as a general governance objective ensuring that individual objectives and policies developed by various entities are mutually reinforcing. Even though it may be unrealistic to assume that complete horizontal policy coherence could be achieved, it is still relevant to aim at strengthening the interconnectivity and alignment of policies and promoting a‘whole-of-government'perspective. Co-ordination-oriented research and innovation policy differs from other policy areas because it has to account for an especially cumbersome context and sector-specific differences. Such differences are caused by the dynamics of evolutionary and systemic processes with different phases of competing technological alternatives and emerging dominant designs (Ko nno la et al. 2011. In such settings, efforts at horizontal co-ordination must seek opportunities for collaborative policy formation while recognising the relevance of multiple perspectives in relation to the objectives of different policies. Methodologically, these efforts call for systematic multi-stakeholder processes, lest they be taken over by short-term policy agendas and debates. 2. 2. 4 Temporal co-ordination of policies and research systems. Temporal co-ordination brings another key dimension to transnational co-ordination. In fact, the alignment of strongly differing national research systeem and vertical and horizontal co-ordination are all subject to temporal co-ordination challenges. The aligning of research systems with vertical and horizontal co-ordination efforts face major difficulties in facilitating policy activities that lead to sustainable policy efforts over time. The OECD (2003) defines temporal coherence as a general policy objective that ensures that policies continue to be effective over time and that short-term decisions do not contradict longer-term commitments. Temporal co-ordination focuses on how policies work out as they interact with other policies or other forces in society, including whether future costs are taken into account in today's policy-making. This is crucial for ensuring synergies between the programmes, given the role of time lags in transnational policy-making contexts. Table 3 links the four dimensions of policy co-ordination, as described above to potential barriers to transnational research programming. 2. 3 High level of complexity calls for a systemic, participatory and anticipatory co-ordination approach The complexity of the co-ordination challenge of transnatiiona research programming calls for approaches that can engage stakeholders horizontally from different policy and research areas as well as vertically and internationally from different countries and regions to support informed decision-making on the scope, structure and subsequent funding commitments. Such stakeholder engagement can enhance the systemic understanding of existing research activities and applied policy instruments that help to define the scope of the transnational programme in line with criteria such as: efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness. In last two decades systemic challenges in research and innovation have lead to the development of systemic Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 195 instruments for better preparedness, co-ordination and integrratio of research and innovation systems (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004. Among different systemic instruments foresight has been characterised as a participatory, systemic and anticipatory vision building approach that supports the present-day decision-making (European commission 2002). In this paper we explore the possible role of foresight in transnational research programming and how it can respond to systemic, horizontal, vertical and temporal co-ordination challenges by mobilising, integrating and facilitating the different functions of programming described in Table 2. 3. Empirical observations on recent foresights in connection with transnational research programming In this section we describe three European cases of transnatiiona research programming in terms of the role foresight plays in addressing the co-ordination challenges identified in Section 2. First, we take a brief look at the foresight processes, the cases are linked then to the dimensiion of co-ordination identified in Section 2. Based on the observations in this section, some possible foresight principple are discussed in Section 4. Further testing of those principles goes beyond the scope of this paper, but opens opportunities for future research and piloting of the proposed approach. 3. 1 Foresight processes case by case The cases were handpicked principally because of the explicit role of foresight activities in their implementation as well as the fact that the present authors had access to the information and were familiar with it. The combination of cases was selected to provide a mix of cases at varying stages of progress and to show the different roles that foresiigh plays (see Table 4). A more detailed analysis of the Table 3. Dimensions of policy co-ordination and related key barriers for transnational research programming Dimension of policy co-ordination Description Potential barriers19 Alignment of research systems Alignment of structural and systemic differences in national research systems Structural differences between national research systems hampering co-ordination of programmes Structural differences in national programme orientation and implementation orientation Differences in distribution of research across research performers Differences in degree of control of governments over research agendas Varying interests at national level in collaborating beyond borders Varying openness of current and past programmes to other nations Different funding modes Vertical co-ordination Co-ordination between local, regional and (international levels National researchers not keen to see more budget used for transnational projects Lack of alignment between policy-makers and implementing organisations Difficulties to agree on the type of contracts at different levels for Research, Development and Deployment co-operation (including currency issues) Lack of networks/no European structures to coordinate co-operation in programme area Geographic distance Policy to achieve national priorities through internal capacity building/sufficient volume of high quality applications from internal capacity Influential decision-makers do not see value Sharing activities/results would dilute international leadership conflicting interests between competitors Transnational activities are focused on non-EU countries Administration costs of transnational projects outweigh benefits No significant policy changes or explicit criteria to encourage transnational activities No clear priorities at national level Horizontal co-ordination Co-ordination between research innovation and other policy areas (such as competition, regional, financial, employment and education policies) Another organisation deals with international activities Problems with aligning financial resources and budget disputes over co-funding Diverging degrees of experience with (horizontal) policy co-ordination at national/regional level Differences in degree of cross-sector collaboration (e g. university industry collaboration ) Temporal co-ordination Ensuring that policies continue to be effective over time and that short-term decisions do not contradict longer-term commitmeent(‘dynamic efficiency')Differences in degree of continuity of policy design and implementation Differences in start and duration of national programmes Different national rules and cycles make collaboration impractical Differences in speed of implementation at national level Differences in degree of long-term planning at national/regional level 196. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman specific processes and roles of foresight in each of these cases is given below and in Fig. 2. 3. 1. 1 Wood Wisdom-net24. The main role of foresight in this case is to support the joint programme preparation of Member States and the mobilisation and networking of innovation communities across borders. The responsibles for the shaping of research agendas realised that a systematti participatory bottom up foresight process could streamline the engagement of Research and Technology development communities from eight countries. Stakeholders25 had specified roles and responsibilities in each consecutive phase of the foresight process. Their inputs were solicited and synthesised through extensive internet-based consultations and carefully planned workshoops 317 future-oriented research issues were proposed by researchers and assessed by researchers and industrial leaders on the basis of different criteria. 26 Those issues that were evaluated favourably on the different criteria were prioritised for discussion in a series of four workshops. Based on the results of the last workshop for funding organisaations three working groups were formed such that each consisted of funding organisations with shared interesst in the topic of the working group. 3. 1. 2 EMIDA ERA-NET27. The main role of foresight in this case is to develop, maintain and update the strategic research agenda (SRA), which will support transnational research programming by delivering research issues. To this end, longer-term strategic requirements with a 10 5 year outlook are identified in a systematic way, building on knowledge about future aspects of animal disease develoopmen in Europe and the world, and linking this to existing research programmes (see Fig. 2). The partners see the need to repeat such an approach at a certain frequency in order to adapt research programmes to the dynamic environment. To this end a foresight and programming unit (FPU) was established, consisting of a small group with an interest in the animal diseases and their future perspectives. The limited size of the group aimed for an active flexible and decisive approach. It is envisaged also that the FPU will be sustained in the long term with additional tasks related to implementation of the SRA, ongoing foresight activities aiming to renew the SRA, foresiigh capacity building and gap analysis. The sustainability of the FPU is intended to be achieved by having the SCAR Collaborative Working group Animal Health and Welfare (SCAR CWG) take it forward after the EMIDA ERA NET project has ended. 28 Table 4. Description of selected cases and respective foresight roles Case Partners Timing Goal Role of foresight Wood Wisdom-net20 18 partners from 8 European countries 2004 8 Establish and deepen collaborattio between European funding organisations in field of wood material science in order to coordinate use of research funds Ad hoc process to support joint programme preparation of Member States and support mobilising and networking of innovation communities across borders EMIDA ERA-NET21 29 partners (and three observers) of 19 EU Member States and Associated Countries 2008 11 Develop a durable focused network22 of national research funders in Member and Associated States of EU in order to share information, coordiinat activities and work towards a common research agenda and mutual research funding activities in field of animal health Structured long-term foresight process to develop, maintain and update SRA, supported by establishment of a long-term FPU Urban Europe Joint Programme Initiative (JPI) 23 14 Member States and associated countries 2010 onwards‘Rethink and manage the increasing urban orientation and concentration in Europe in order to create and exploit synergy in an urbanised Europe, from an economic, social, environmental and transport-related perspective, leading to a strengthened global position in Europe'(Urban Europe, 2011) Determine specific research needs and roadmaps, short-and long-term policy measures, business opportunities and needs for new co-operation structures Support identification of breakthrroug innovations on functions of cities in future (2020 50) Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 197 3 . 1. 3 Urban Europe Joint Programming Initiative29. In this case foresight supports the identification of specific research needs and roadmaps, short-and long-term poliic measures business opportunities, needs for new co-operation structures and breakthrough innovations with regard to the functions of cities in the future (2020 50. A draft research agenda, known as the Strategic research Framework (SRF) has been developed building upon and around four interconnected pillars, 30 and making use of foresight techniques (a backcasting experimeent a first vision building workshop and an SRA workshop) The majority of the foresight process is, however, still to be implemented, and there are plans to further refine the SRF. The planned foresight process (see Fig. 2) consists of a pre foresight phase and four foresight phases. Interestingly, a pilot call is part of the foresight process, and will comprise targeted research within a two-year span in order to broaden the knowledge base in three areas: urban megatrends, urban networks and connectiivity and the socio-ecological sustainability of city systems. Expected outcomes of the pilot call include: scenarrio for long-term urban developments, an improved understanding of future trends and research needs, first concepts and recommendations for policy measures, a strengthening of the European research and innovation communities, and an Urban Europe platform for these communities. Stakeholder engagement and networking is a core element of the process, from the design of the Urban Europe process and the further development of the SRF to the participation in research projects and in implementatiio measures. The participation initiatives embedded in the process include the establishment of an Urban Europe forum (UEF) 31 and an Urban Europe exchange platform. 32 Despite the fact that these forums are designed not expliccitl for the anticipation of long-term future developments, they are relevant for ensuring wider stakehollde debate and engagement. 3. 2 Conclusions on the cases Our examination of the three initiatives indicates that foresiigh activities may alleviate some barriers to transnational programming by way of addressing systemic, horizontal, vertical and temporal co -ordination challenges. As shown in Table 5, foresight activities can find different roles and forms when dealing with co-ordination challenges. Such diversity of foresight activities indicates that it is relevant to tailor the foresight design and management style to the case-specific context and to particular requirements of the participating organisations and related stakeholders. Based on experiences within the above three cases some initial conclusions can be drawn on the way in which foresiigh can support the four co-ordination challenges identified in Section 2. 3. 2. 1 Alignment of research systems. Foresight supports the alignment of different research systems by Figure 2. Project phases of foresight in each of three cases selected. 198. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman including different parts of the transnational research landscape in the participatory process, and collecting informmatio on the views of different stakeholder groups within these research systems on future issues such as research priorities and implementation modes. Collecting information on (differences in) the structure of research funding the ministries and organisations involved, their respective visions for the future, and their plans for Table 5. Ways in which foresight addresses co-ordination challenges in transnational research programming Co-ordination challenge Wood Wisdom-Net EMIDA Urban Joint Programming Initiative Alignment of research systems Bottom up consultation process networrkin researchers and industrial leaders across borders. A workshop with funding organisatiion was organised. Three working groups with funding organissation were composed based on similar interests in future research topics Mapping of recent foresight exercises with support of FPU Project pays attention to research capacity and capability building (in infrastructure and expertise) on regional and transnational level FPU of project aims to promote transparency and access to research programmes and results across all countries Mapping and analysis of existing foresight exercises for urban regions and for other non-region specific topics relevant for urban development allows gaps to be identified where additional foresight exercises may be needed Development of an SRF that sets out likely directiion of technological and organisational change that need to be converted into research programmes Alignment of existing national programmes and research strategies in a variable geometry Vertical co-ordination Bottom up consultation process engaging researchers and industrial leaders providing a wealth of informmatio for national funding agencies on their stakeholders'interest and capabilities to benefit from planned programme Proposals for new/additional foresights aiming to cover identified gaps in future outlooks on regional or transnational level Proposals for (strategic research topics for commissioning at EU level taking into account ongoing and planned research in European countries Facilitate cost-effectiveness of research-commissioning by trying to establish and publish shared priorities on a transnatiiona programme level Mapping of foresight exercises at all governance levels Establishment of a UEF, aiming at continuous dialogue between a wide set of stakeholders and JPI Urban Europe Use of a pilot call to engage stakeholders at different levels in broadening knowledge base Engagement with other networks and organisatiion (e g. close co-operation with China on foresight) Horizontal co-ordination Cross-feeding of research teams was encouraged by assessment of submitted issues and asking researrcher for expressions of interest in collaborating in each issue, which allowed advanced network analysis and supported novel research collaboration across research fields Foresight exercise is multi-disciplinary. It aims to include stakeholders from other disciplines in priority setting and to create a multidiscipplinar co-ordination network of research funders for joint funding of transnatiiona research and research networking Four pillars for Urban Europe are identified. Foresight efforts focus specifically on interfaces of those four pillars Urban Europe exchange platform aims amongst others at connecting various disciplines and starting new initiatives with European R&i communities Temporal co-ordination Consultation on research issues among stakeholders provided future-oriented information on directtio and interests of research community. This helped national funding agencies to develop a common agenda for programme and to overcome differences in programming FPU aims to do continuous foresigght update SRA and extend lifetime of network beyond lifetime of ERA NET A small and decisive team aims to apply a flexible and adaptive approach, which can change during process accordiin to upcoming needs Analysis of current time horizon of existing programmes reveals a lack of longer term foresights. Foresights with a time horizon of 2050 and beyond are planned therefore Development of scenarios, desirable futures and pathways towards these futures for specific Urban Europe topics Use of a pilot call to improved understanding of future trends and research needs beyond initial analysis Development of scenarios for long-term urban developments Establishment of an UEF, aiming at continuous dialogue between stakeholders and Urban Europe and ensuring a long-term integration of stakeholders in activities Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 199 increasing research capacity in a specific thematic area can also contribute to better understanding and aligning research systems. Joint visions and joint research agendas also facilitate the alignment of future joint programmes and of research infrastructure planning with these programmmes The participation of the actors in research systems in a foresight process may also promote transparennc and information sharing at different levels and in different phases (information sharing and alignment of existing programmes, sharing of research results), thus also increasing trust. Participation in the context of aligning research systems may also relate to sharing research results. 3. 2. 2 Vertical co-ordination. Foresight may enhance vertical co-ordination by taking stock of previous anticipattor studies and existing visions for the future at regional, national and transnational level. A gap analysis on missing future outlooks may propose additional studies at regional, national or transnational level. Networking and engagement with related initiatives at different levels, within and beyond the geographical scope of the collaboratiion may also support vertical collaboration. Conducting bottom-up consultations or launching a (pilot) call aimed at gathering more anticipatory intelligence are ways to provide different policy levels with rich information about the interests of the stakeholders and project partners. 3. 2. 3 Horizontal co-ordination. Horizontal coordinnatio can be enhanced by foresight by encouraging the sharing of research interests among research teams in different areas and disciplines. Alternatively, multidiscipplinar stakeholder groups can be formed to work together towards common research agendas in different sub-areas, which can be structured to cross-feed one another. Furthermore, comprehensive stocktaking on earlier foresight studies can be conducted to understand future developments and to position the programme in the light of other ongoing activities. While engaging in future-oriented analysis and engaging wide sets of stakeholdders foresight activities prepare the ground for positioonin and scoping the programme within the transnational research and innovation system using a multitude of instruments, research activities, infrastructuure and institutions. The composition of the research consortium may also help to support horizontal co-ordination, by ensuring representation from different disciplines in the consortium. 33 During the implementation stage, multi-disciplinary supervision of research projects can support horizontal co-ordination. 3. 2. 4 Temporal co-ordination. Temporal co-ordination can be enhanced by foresight through the joint development of a vision for the future and of a roadmap towards it, and can compare this with current programmes and their time horizons. Alternatively, current and planned programmes can be checked against alternative future scenarios to test their robustness over time. Temporal co-ordination also relates to regularly checking those scenariios visions and roadmaps against new developments thus evolving towards a more continuous application of foresight. It can also mean the establishment of a flexible and adaptive approach to foresight, which can change upcoming needs. Here, the establishment of stakeholder platforms for long-term stakeholder engagement in the process and knowledge and collaboration platforms for cumulating knowledge and initiating collaborations between stakeholders have a dimension of temporal co-ordination. Also (pilot) calls can be used to increase the accumulation of knowledge on future trends, scenarios and other relevant data (by dedicating a pilot call to research on such future-oriented issues) and to help building communities over time, thus making use of the collective knowledge of wider stakeholder groups. In particuular the temporal co-ordination dimension calls for safeguarding the existence of a foresight function and capabilities as an integral part of programming. 4. Discussion Building on our experiences from the case studies, foresiigh seems to hold the promise of facilitating the implementtatio of different functions of transnational research programming way beyond the identification of emerging issues, priority areas and relevant stakeholders. In particulaar the role of a supporting tool like foresight for engaging and mobilising the innovation communities can be crucial for understanding (and enhancing) the capacities and capabilities of different countries to participate in joint programmes. We consider that foresight holds promise for a structured and responsive process that efficiently mobillise stakeholders and informs decision-making. Foresight supports a structured organisation of stakehollde involvement, orienting the efforts towards understanndin diverse interests and shared visions on future developments, thus contributing to better decision-making in a cost-effective way. We first look at some principles for the use of foresight, drawing on the cases, and then explore more in detail how foresight can play a role as an integratto of different functions of transnational research programming. Section 4 ends with a look at the implicatiion for research programming in and beyond Europe. 4. 1 Foresight principles for transnational research programming To be effective in supporting transnational research programming, foresight activities need to address the 200. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman different dimensions of co-ordination challenges. Against this backdrop, the design and management of foresight may benefit from some principles that support the attainmeen of the objectives of the entire programming initiative and support its legitimacy in the wider research and poliic landscape. We crystallise three principles for foresiigh design and management in transnational research programming. 4. 1. 1 Scalable design for transnational initiatives. Scalability, the ability to be expanded or upgraded, is needed to process contributions vertically from stakehollder who are accustomed to different levels of abstractiio when considering regional, sectoral, national or European priorities. The notion of scalability has at least three sub-dimensions:.Input scalability, which makes it possible to involve varying amounts of contributions from a changing number of stakeholders..Geographical scalability, which makes it possible to involve stakeholders regardless of the geographical distance between them..Administrative scalability, which permits the decomposiitio of the foresight process into manageable sub-processes and enables transitions between different levels of abstraction by way of problem structuring and synthesis (Ko nno la et al. 2011). In Woodwisdom-Net, scalability meant that the consultation process had to deal with varying amounts of contributions from a large number of stakeholders in different countries. Moreover, the overall consultation process had to be decomposed into manageable sub-processes. Decomposition was facilitated by the framework for research sub-areas and by treating research areas and research themes as relevant‘units of analysis'that experts could assess with an internet-based decision support tool. Recomposition of smaller units of analysis was carried out in workshops, in order to first, identify similarities and interdependences between proposed research issues; and secondly to generate more holistic perspectives on the emerging agenda. 4. 1. 2 Modular and structured process for balanced and diverse stakeholder engagement. Modularity refers to process design where analogous sub-processes or modules can be enacted relatively independently from the other sub-processes (Ko nno la et al, 2011). This conceep is key to attaining scalability: for instance, input scalability can be achieved by carrying out modules of analogous foresight processes in different countries, after which further sub-processes can be conducted to interpret these processes, say, from the viewpoint of internationally agreed priorities. Modularity also makes it easier to compare the results of sub-processes and to achieve economies of scale. In the Urban Europe case, an example of modularity is the preparation of a pilot call to collect anticipatory intelligence, and the organisatiio in parallel of foresight activities on selected Urban Europe topics. In Woodwisdom-Net, modularity was pursued, for example by developing a framework for the field of wood material science, consisting of four research areas and 23 sub-areas. Stakeholder participation was also based on the definition of explicit roles and responsibilities for the different phases of the process. 4. 1. 3 Flexible and responsive management to accommoodat with stakeholder expectations. The use of a structured approach and exploitation of the internet can support the monitoring, evaluation and overall legitimmac of the activity by way of allowing traceability of emerging jointly proposed themes or research topics. But accommodating different national interests, capabilities and culture in transnational programming also calls for flexibility in the design and management of the foresight process. On the eve of initiating a foresight exercise and scoping its research programme it is often premature for many national agencies to decide on their level of committmen to that programme and its planning. Foresight can be structured in a way that allows flexibility in design to respond to the changing expectations of stakeholdders for instance including open access and the exit of participating organisations may be taken into account. In the EMIDA ERA NET flexibility is built into the design through:.the establishment of a small foresight team prepared to be adaptive and flexible depending on the changing conditions. search for a balance between planned foresight activities and expected additional non-defined activities of the FPU In the Urban Europe case, the UEF will use guidelines instead of terms of references, in order to maximise the flexibility in developing the forum. Flexibility is applied also in the pilot phase, which offers participating countries various options and instruments to participate (such as foresights, joint calls, and the alignment of existing programmes) in variable geometry. In Woodwisdom-Net, some‘slack'in scheduling was built into the process schedule as a risk mitigation measure. Moreover the tasks in the final phases were specified not fully at the outset, because it was expected that results from the earlier phases would be helpful in planning these tasks. Furthermore, if one regards foresight as a creative process (Salo et al. 2004), then it may be impertinent to fix foresight objectives and design for the duration of the Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 201 entire exercise, if only because the foresight exercise produces information about the relevance and attainability of these very objectives. Instead of seeking to‘fix'the objecttive and associated process design at the outset those in charge of the foresight process should anticipate, and even prepare for, later modifications in the implementation plan. The foresight literature contains several accounts of the tensions arising from attempts to map out and execute large-scale foresight exercises according to a clear‘bluepriint (Havas 2003). Salo et al. 2004) argue that responsiveness to shifting objectives and stakeholder expectations should be regarded as a major concern and even a key design variable in the planning and execution of foresight activities. The need for responsiveness by which they mean‘purposely designed managerial controls for making warranted mid-course adaptations to foresight objecttive and implementation plans'depends on the envisaged role that is ascribed to a specific foresight activity in an evolving innovation environment. Hence, while ensuring the scalable, fast and efficient implementation of a transnational foresight process by way of structured and parallel activities coordinated in different modules it is also important leave room in the design to integrate clear phases that allow for redirectiin and redesigning the whole process to better meet the stakeholder expectations and to accommodate new priorities in the plans. Towards this end, the modular design is helpful by way of including process and result flexibility. Process flexibility refers to the ability to make methodologgica changes in how certain results are obtained such as: decisions on what methods are used and how they are applied, which stakeholders take part and how long the project phase will last. However, the process flexibility may not alter the format in which the results are expected to be presented, for instance, by way of using commonly agreed units of analysis. Within the modules, which are conducted in parallel, it is possible to apply differren tools and methods as long as the results are presennte in a similar manner. This approach is illustrated by the Urban Europe case, where a pilot call is planned to collect additional intelligence on future trends and scenarrio and support the construction of stakeholder communities and platforms. At the time of writing this paper only the expected outcomes have been defined, as well as criteria to assess potential call topics, such as providing input and insights for developing new concepts and providing input for research roadmaps. In turn, with the notion of‘result flexibility'we refer to leaving flexibiliit with regards to how the results are expected to be presennted Between the modules executed in sequence, it is possible to have both process and result flexibility, thus to make changes in overall design and objectives of the entire project (see Fig. 3). 4. 2 Foresight as an integrator Transnational foresight activities may be seen to claim excesssiv resources and to be time consuming, hence be counterproductive by inhibiting the rapid and efficient implementation of transnational research programming. Hence, foresight can be seen as an integrator of other programming functions, which structures the engagement of stakeholders from different countries, sectors and disciplline and facilitates and speeds up the implementation (see Fig. 4). Achieving the benefits of foresight activities in support of the implementation of other programming functions is related to the appropriate positioning of foresight design and management in the overall programming process. In this respect we have identified four challenges which are apparent in the implementation of transnational research programming and the consequent roles for foresight..Access to international pool of experts for transnational research programming. The identification and engagemeen of experts is crucial for different programming functions, for instance scoping calls for wide stakehollde engagement from different disciplines for the sake of the legitimacy of the entire exercise; answering the calls is expected to mobilise numerous researchers; the reviewers should be selected internationally from among the best existing experts; and the evaluations of the projects, programmes and the instruments for transnational research programming should be conduccte by those with the most appropriate expertise. Participatory foresight creates wider awareness on the programme and prepares stakeholders to participate in other functions. Towards this end foresight can facilitaat access to and co-ordination of different networks and databases of experts and other stakeholders. The balanced engagement is subject to national differences, which calls for the identification of suitable interfaces at different levels of research and innovation systems Figure 3. Process and result flexibility in modular foresight design for transnational research programming. 202. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman that can support the access to experts. Foresight extends the sector and discipline focused expert databaase and thus provides opportunities to bring in new faces in incumbent collaborative networks, lowering the risk of simply involving the‘usual suspects 'if one relies only on internal databases. Also the composition of the initial consortium may impact on the capacity to engage with wider networks. EMIDA ERA NET faced difficulties engaging stakeholders from other disciplinnes because of strong reliance on conventional databaase used in the sector from consortium partners. In view of the cross-feeding and understanding of horizonnta thematic inter-connections, it may also be useful to explore the development of common expert pools for different instruments for transnational research programming..Access and accumulation of knowledge in support of transnational research programming. Informed programmmin decisions necessitate the comprehensive examination of the wider context, building on diverse statistical and policy support databases and the plethora of documentation from different levels of research and innovation systems. In practice, such work faces major obstacles of fragmentation or even suffers from the lack of relevant information, whose use could be considered to be justified for decisionmakking In such conditions, foresight processes can support the mapping of information sources and the development of joint knowledge repositories (see for instance the European foresight Platform). 34 Furthermoore foresight plays particularly a relevant role in learning on future developments in the areas where there is little or no evidence-based record. By way of engaging stakeholders in the creation and codification of tacit knowledge (Nonaka 1994), foresight synthesises key findings for decision-makers from fragmented information and expert recommendations. Hence, foresiigh can play a significant role of interface and sense-making between diverse sources of information and the decision-makers..Guidance for design and process management. Transnatiiona research programming faces difficulties in obtaining impartial and neutral process management support without favouring vested interests. This risk of partiality can be limited by introducing a foresight approach into the process. Considering the national differences in foresight capabilities and capacities, particcula efforts in organising training35 for possible national coordinators could enhance the overall quality and participation in transnational research programming, making use of existing initiatives such as the Forlearn Online foresight Guide (European commission 2012) or the UNIDO Technology foresiigh Guide (UNIDO 2012)..Availability of IT solutions for process implementation. The transnational, efficient and effective engagement of numerous stakeholders may lead to time-consuming and resource-intensive processes. Therefore, it is crucial to explore different and complementary forms of engagement and novel process designs that can help overcome such challenges. Towards this end, the case studies in Section 3 and numerous other studies36 show evidence of the benefits of applying internet-based soluttion to obtain fast and cost-efficient stakeholder engageement An optimal use of internet applications for stakeholder engagement and the exploitation of the informmatio collected in order to implement and evaluate the programme seem to call for sharing best practices Figure 4. Foresight as an integrator of different functions of transnational research programming. Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 203 in appropriate applications for the benefit of different types of transnational research programming. The above-mentioned implementation challenges for transnational research programming and the respective roles of foresight activities can be seen from the viewpoints of an individual programming project, of an instrument, and of transnational research programming in general. All viewpoints are subject to similar types of co-ordination challenges. Against this backdrop, it is probably practical to explore how access to experts and the accumulation of foresight and other types of supporting knowledge through the shared repositories could benefit different types of activities in the realm of transnational research programming. 4. 3 Implications for research programming in Europe and beyond In Europe, one of the recent and most advanced efforts to move forward with transnational research programming has been Joint Programming (JP) in Research (European commission 2008), a programme set up in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy (European commission 2010b) and European Innovation Partnerships (European commission 2010c). Despite the promising initiated pilots on JP, there is scarce managerial support on how foresight processes could be applied in JP so that it facilitaate the overall JP process. EU Member States have approved a first version of evolving and voluntary framewoor conditions for joint programming (ERAC-GPC 2011), which serve as guidelines on how to implement a JP process and which also include a section on forward-looking activities (which is understood to include foresight and other forms of anticipatory intelligennce) The above-presented three foresight principles in this section are particularly relevant for JP, as the JP instrument is based on variable geometry, voluntary particippatio and flexible implementation. The argument for using foresight as an integrator of transnational programming functions pleads for giving a more promineen role to forward-looking activities as an integrator of other framework conditions. Finally, the ways in which foresight can accommodate the four dimensions of the co-ordination challenge may offer a more systematic way for JP to address these dimensions, e g. to systematically involve regional and local levels in JP. The analysis and discussion may be of similar relevance to forms of transnational research programming between nations outside Europe especially when a tradition is lacking in transnational collaboration, in applying particippator approaches and in working with longerteer planning, or when the research and innovation systems and capacities of the countries involved are highly diverse. 5. Conclusions Recent efforts in transnational research programming indicate that the mobilising effect of embedded foresight activities can lead to novel networking and cross-feeding of research and innovation initiatives between the sectors, disciplines and different countries. However, such internatiiona engagements call for a structured and modular design to avoid endeavours that are time-and resource-intensive. Among strong drivers for transnational research programming the recent emphasis on pooling resources for finding innovative solutions to major societal challennge has created a strong impetus to overcome these barriers. However, the complexity and the mere scale of the processes required to engage the various stakeholders of research, industry, public administration and civil society in different levels of research innovation systems set a major managerial challenge how to prepare, run and evaluate such activities in a effective, efficient and approppriat as well as transparent, open and inclusive manner. In order to address this co-ordination challenge we have specified and explored four dimensions and five functions of transnational research programming. Against this background we explored how foresight activities embedded in transnational research programming can support those dimensions and functions. This provided some evidence on a significant role for foresight in facilitating and integrating different functions of programming. However, this requires that foresight and the principles we have outlined are integrated into the overall design and management from the outset of the programming activities. Therefore, we suggest further research and piloting of general foresight principles and guidance for the efficient and flexible implementation of transnational research programming. Towards this end, the further piloting of the principles and roles for foresight in transnational research programming should be enhanced, as well as the general understanding of, and capacity in running, foresight projects through foresight training. Knowledge collected on pilots methodologies and understanding of transnational research programming needs to be accumulated, calling for institutionalised forms of knowledge repositories. While choosing the perspective of embedding foresight in transnational programming rather than providing ad hoc support, we run a risk of co-optation37 of foresight and consequent constraints to develop radically new alternattive or particularly bold programmes in terms of scale and ambition. In this respect, particular design structures ensuring minimum autonomy in foresight activities and methodological choices (for instance, horizon scanning and generation of innovation ideas among a wide and diverse set of stakeholders) can alleviate the risk of co-optation, but need to be flexible for tailoring to casespeccifi contexts. Furthermore, the positioning of foresight 204. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman as an integrator of other programming functions can outweigh the risks and offer the opportunities to attain creative results faster with significant societal impacts. Finally, transnational programming in a non-European context may benefit even more from the capacity of foresight to act as an integrator, especially in cases where a culture of participation and of transnational research and innovation policy co-ordination is lacking. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Wim Ooms Luke Dalton, Matthias Weber, Klaus Kubeczko and the anonymous reviewers for their contributions to improving this paper. The views expressed are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European commission. Notes 1. See Europe 2020 (European commission 2010b) and the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union (European commission 2010c. 2. See, for instance, for the USA: A Strategy for American Innovation: Securing Our Economic growth and Prosperity.<<http://www. whitehouse. gov/innovation strategy>accessed 15 march 2012.3. For an analysis of the link between innovation strategies and economic performance, see Dahlman (2008. 4. The four steps used by ERA NET (European research area-NET) are:.systematic exchange of information and good practices on existing programmes and activities. identification and analysis of common strategic issues. planning and development of joint activities between national and regional programmes. implementation of joint transnational activities, including joint calls and joint programmes Each step also relates to a typology of activities. 5. Based on Optimat et al. 2005), Anderson (2010), Chioncel and Cuntz (2012), European commission (2011), Seiser (2010) and authors'own expertise. 6. An indicator of the culture of openness may be the past and present openness of research programmes to other nations. For example, ERAWATCH data show that two-thirds of 2009 national research prograamme relevant for the Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate change have no openness to other EU Member States. 7. Platforms collecting data on foresight exercises can offer deeper insights into possible and desired futures of research priorities, e g.<<www. foresight-platform. eu>accessed 15 march 2012.8. The use of‘regional'in this paper is to be understood as‘geographically part of a nation'not as a‘grouping different nations'.'9. This platform aims at supporting the process for develoopin national/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation that support the development of well-performing national or regional research and innovaatio systems, often supported by regional foresigght Such strategies also include the analysis of potential partners in other regions in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and fragmentation of efforts.<<http://ipts. jrc. ec. europa. eu/activities/research-andinnovvations3platform. cfm>accessed 15 march 2012.10. ERAWATCH is a platform collecting data on national research systems in the ERA, including policy documents and research programmes. 11. NETWATCH collects data on transnational research collaboration in the ERA. 12. In Europe the following European and intergovernmennta mechanisms are in place: the ERA NET Scheme (ERA NET Actions and ERA NET Plus Actions), Article 185 Initiatives (old Art. 169), European Technology platforms, Joint Technology initiatives, Eureka, JP, the Open Method of Coordination, COST, KICS, European Innovation Partnerships. Thematic instruments are the Standing committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) in the field of agriculture, and European Industrial Initiatives and the European Energy Research Alliance in the field of energy. 13. For example: JTIS make use of Framework Prograamm 7 support services such as the IPR Helpdesk(<www. ipr-helpdesk. org>accessed 15 march 2012) and the Finance Helpdesk(<www. finance-helpdesk. org>accessed 15 march 2012). 14. External evaluation of the EIT (External Evaluation 2011. 15. Optimat et al. 2005) defines three types of dominant programme orientation strategies for national research systems in Europe: single framework programme, multiple generic programmes, and multiple thematic programmes. 16. Optmat (2005) defines three types of dominant funding organisations: multi agency/council/ministry, several agencies/councils, and single agency/council. 17. For example, 23.9%of EU gross expenditure on r&d is performed by the higher education sector, but with many national differences. In Luxembourg this is below 10, %while in Lithuania over 50%of gross expenditure on r&d is performed by this sector (calculaation based on Eurostat data for 2009). 18. For example, in Belgium thematic choices for research in universities are left to the researchers themselves, the responsible governments focus on the quality of scientific research (Bruno and Van til 2011). Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 205 19. Based on Optimat et al. 2005), Anderson (2010), Chioncel and Cuntz (2012), European commission (2011), Seiser (2010) and the present authors'own expertise. 20. The case description is based on Brummer et al. 2008). ) 21. EMIDA ERA NET stands for‘Coordination of European research on emerging and major infectious diseases of livestock'.'The case description is based on EMIDA Description of Work (2009. 22. This initiative builds on the work of the SCAR. 23. Case description based on Urban Europe (2011. 24. The case description is based on Brummer et al. 2008). ) 25. Over 400 stakeholders from all participating countries participated in the process. 26. The assessment criteria for researcher's were: novelty, tentative researcher's interest and description how the researcher would like to contribute to future projects on the issue. The criteria for industry were: industrial relevance, possible time horizon for industrial use and need for collaboration at EU level. 27. Case description based on EMIDA Description of Work (2009. 28. To this end terms of reference (Ooms 2009) for its establishment have been drafted, which will be part of a wider collaboration agreement. 29. Case description based on Urban Europe (2011. The first experiences with practical implementation followiin this report may look somewhat different than described in this report. Within the timeframe of this paper it is, however, too early to draw any conclusions on possible discrepancies between planning and implementtatio of foresight activities in this case. 30. The four pillars are: economy, mobility, environment and ecology. 31. The UEF aims to establish a continuous dialogue between stakeholders and Urban Europe on strateegi issues and to ensure a long-term integration of a large number of stakeholders in the implementation activities. It has potential to also identify additional research areas and is linked directly to the Management Board. 32. The exchange platform serves the utilisation of existing infrastructures, data and knowledge for linking various disciplines and for initiating new co-operations within the European research and innovaatio communities (with scientists from different disciplines and research areas, city representatives, companies and stakeholder organisations. 33. In the EMIDA ERA NET some difficulties were encounntere in engaging stakeholders from other disciplinnes mainly because databases from consortium partners were used, and the consortium did not reflect all disciplines involved. 34. See<www. foresight-platform. eu>accessed 15 march 2012.35. An example is the generic online foresight training, which has been developed as part of the European foresight Platform, targeting policy-makers at differeen policy-levels. 36. A set of examples of internet-based tools allowing for integration of data of all sorts in future-oriented technollog analysis can be found in Haegeman et al. in press. 37. In particular, if the foresight function is tightly institutionalised, the established power structures and historical path dependencies related to routines and infrastructures may limit the ability of foresight activities to explore alternatives that differ strongly from current pathways. References Anderson, M. S. 2010)‘ International research collaborations: Anticipating challenges instead of being surprised',in Europa World of Learning 2011, Vol. 1, 61st edn, pp. 14 8. London: Routledge. Brummer, V.,Ko nno la, T. and Salo, A. 2008)‘ Foresight within Era nets: Experiences from the preparation of an international research programme',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75: 483 95. Bruno, N. and Van til, J. 2011)‘ ERAWATCH Country Reports 2010: Belgium'.'Brussels: ERAWATCH Network Technopolis Group, European commission. Chioncel, M. and Cuntz, A. 2012)‘ Research and innovation challenges and policy responses in Member States'.'Joint research Centre Scientific and Technical Report. Brussels: European commission. Dahlman, C. 2008)‘ Innovation strategies of three of the BRICS: Brazil, India and China: What can we learn from three different approaches?''Working Paper SLPTMD (Department of International Development, University of Oxford.<<http://economics. ouls. ox. ac. uk/14015/>accessed 15 march 2012. Edquist, C.,ed.,(1997) Systems Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations. London: Pinter. EMIDA. 2009)‘ Description of Work, Grant Agreement for Co-ordination and Support Actions (Coordinating) EMIDA, Annex 1, approved 31 january 2008 and updated 28 october 2009 (FP7 Theme 2 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology'.'Brussels: European commission. ERAC-GPC. 2011)‘ Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions for Joint Programming in Research 2010'.'Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European union. European commission. 2002)‘ Thinking, debating and shaping the future: Foresight for Europe'.'Final Report of the High level Expert Group for the European commission, 24 april 2002. Brussels: European commission..(2008)‘ Summary of the Impact assessment',Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying document to the Towards Joint Programming. In Research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively, 15/07/2008, SEC (2008) 2282. Brussels: European commission..(2010a)‘ A vision for strengthening world-class research infrastructures in the ERA',Report from the Expert Group on Research infrastructures, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate B European research area: Research programmes and Capacity unit B. 3 206. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman Research infrastructures, EUR 24186. Brussels: European commission..(2010b)‘ EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth',COM (2010) 2020 final. Brussels: European commission..(2010c)‘ Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',COM (2010) 546 final. Commission..(2011)‘ National open access and preservation policies in Europe',Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Directorate B European research area, Unit B. 6 Ethics and gender. Brussels: European commission..(2012)‘ Forlearn Online foresight Guide',<http://www. foresight-platform. eu/community/foresightguide/>accessed 15 march 2012. External Evaluation. 2011) External Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (May 2011), Framework Contract on evaluation and related services (EAC 03/06), Final report on evaluation.<<http://ec. europa. eu/dgs/education culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport en. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Gnamus, A. 2009) Comparative Report on S&t Cooperation of the ERA Countries with Brazil, India and Russia, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 25022 EN.<<http://erawatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/erawatch/export/sites/default/galleries/generic files/file 0101. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Havas, A. 2003)‘ Evolving foresight in a small transition economy: The design, use and relevance of foresight methods in Hungary',Journal of Forecasting, 22: 179 203. Haegeman, K.,Scapolo, F.,Ricci, A.,Marinelli, E. and Sokolov, A. in press)‘ Quantitative and qualitative approaches in FTA: from combination to integration?''Technological forecasting and Social Change, in press. Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004)‘ Managing diversity in a system of multilevel governance: The open method of co-ordination in innovation policy',Journal of European Public policy, 11: 249 66. Ko nno la, T.,Salo, A. and Brummer, V. 2011)‘ Foresight for European coordination: Developing national priorities for the forest-based sector technology platform',International Journal of Technology management, 54: 438 59. Ko nno la, T.,Salo, A.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V. and Vilkkumaa, E. 2012)‘ Facing the future: Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning',Science and Public policy, 39: 222 31. Lundvall, B.-A°.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning. London: Pinter. Matrix-Rambøll. 2009)‘ Evaluation and impact assessment of the ERA NET scheme and the related ERA NET actions under the 6th Framework programme Volume 1: Final Report. Evaluation for the European commission',<ftp://ftp. cordis. europa. eu/pub/fp7/docs/fp6-era net-evaluation-final-report-volume-1-q1-q5-d1 -to-d14 en. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Meier zu Ko cker, G.,Hein, D. and Chinalski, M. 2008)‘ German Polish network-based R&d co-operation: Enablers and barriers'.'Berlin: European Institute for Innovation and Technology. Niehoff, J. and Andersdotter, C. 2007)‘ Report on the Workshop for ERA NETS on industrial technologies',<http://netwatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/static/download/Report%20workshop %20era-NETS%20industrial%20technologies%202007. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Nonaka, I. 1994)‘ A dynamic theory of organizational knowleedg creation',Organization science, 5: 14 37. OECD. 2003)‘ Policy coherence',Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, GOV/PUMA (2003) 4. Paris: OECD. Ooms, W. 2009)‘ EMIDA deliverable 4. 1 A framework for a durable Foresight & Programming unit, including terms of reference to develop a strategic research agenda dynamically, '<http://www. emida-era net/upload/pdf/WP4%20deliverable%204%201%20framework%20fpu%20incl%20tor%20 final%2016042009. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE-Innovation+Technik Gmbh for DG Research Directorate M2. 2005)‘ Examining the design of national research programmes'.'Brussels: European commission. Reid, A.,Miedzinski, M.,Bruno, N. and le Gars, G. 2007)‘ Synergies between the EU 7th Research Framework programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme and the Structural Funds',Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy, European parliament (IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2006-87/LOT3/C1. Strasbourg: European parliament. Salo, A.,Ko nno la, T. and Hjelt, M. 2004)‘ Responsiveness in foresight management: Reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 70 88. Seiser, C. 2010)‘ Priority setting for JPIS against all odds: Science versus politics. A front-line report',presentation at the Joint Programming Conference, held Brussels, 18 9 october 2010.<<www. jointprogramming2010. eu/pdfpresenntation1. 2%20-%20seiser. pptx>accessed 15 march 2012. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. 2004)‘ The rise of systemic instrumeent in innovation policy',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 4 32. UNIDO. 2012)‘ UNIDO Technology foresight Guide',<https://www. unido. org/foresight/registration/dokums raw/volume2 unido tf manual. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Urban Europe. 2011)‘ Report for EC assessment',Urban Europe Joint Programming Initiative.<<http://www. era. gv. at/attach/Urban-Report ecassessment 201104 final. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 207

< Back - Next >

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