On Foresight Design and Management: A Classification Framework for Foresight Exercises
The gradual paradigm shift in innovation research and policy from linear to systemic innovation models has also challenged also the conventional technocratic technology-driven forecasting practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight a
- PDF / 455,417 Bytes
- 32 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 92 Downloads / 198 Views
On Foresight Design and Management: A Classification Framework for Foresight Exercises Totti Könnölä, Toni Ahlqvist, Annele Eerola, Sirkku Kivisaari, and Raija Koivisto
9.1
Introduction
The gradual paradigm shift in innovation research and policy from linear to systemic innovation models has challenged also the conventional technocratic technology-driven forecasting practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight approaches (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004). In the 1980s, publicly funded foresight activities were commonly seen as an instrument for assisting in the development of priorities for research and development (R&D) resource allocation (Irvine and Martin 1984). Later on, stakeholder participation and networking have been regarded as increasingly important elements of foresight activities for ‘wiring up’ the multilayered innovation systems both in the public (Martin and Johnston 1999) and private sectors (e.g. Salmenkaita and Salo 2004). Reports from recent foresight projects have, in turn, emphasized the importance of common vision building as a
T. Könnölä (*) Impetu Solutions, Palacio de Miraflores, Carrera de San Jerónimo, 15-2, 28014 Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] T. Ahlqvist VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 106, 20521 Turku, Finland e-mail: [email protected] A. Eerola • S. Kivisaari VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Espoo Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] R. Koivisto VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tekniikankatu 1, P.O. Box 1300, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] M. Giaoutzi and B. Sapio (eds.), Recent Developments in Foresight Methodologies, Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems 1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_9, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
133
134
T. Könnölä et al.
step towards the synchronization of the innovation system (Cuhls 2003). In these developments, the locus of foresight activities has tended to shift from positivist and rationalist technology-focused approaches to the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system, including its environmental, social and economic perspectives. The High Level Expert Group appointed by the European Commission crystallized these trends by defining foresight as follows (European Commission 2002): ‘A systematic, participatory, future intelligence gathering and medium-to-long-term vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and mobilizing joint action’. While the expansion of foresight scope has provided significant opportunities for learning and synchronized action between different business units and/or policy fields, it may also have caused digression and ambiguity in the practice and theory of the management of foresight processes (Könnölä 2006). Managing a larger set of foresight activities and designing and managing individual, even strikingly different foresight projects, requires profound understanding of the varying nature of the foresight ta
Data Loading...
