From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy

Abstract The paper addresses the application of foresight to research and innovation policy and strategy. It seeks to show an evolution away from a traditional focus on broad-based technological priority setting to a much more focussed and adapted set of applications. The inherent limitations of prioritisation processes are discussed. The more limited aim of articulating specific fields is noted. Recent trends in research and innovation policy have opened new opportunities for the application of foresight. Systemic and demand-side policies require a shared vision on the part of purchasers and suppliers. The role of foresight in such contexts needs both to be enhanced and better understood. An increasing structural focus for foresight exercises is associated not only with broader R&I system reform but also with an engagement with new-wave innovation policies. The success of demand-side measures such as cluster policies and the use of procurement or regulation to stimulate innovation is dependent upon the formation of a common vision between the supply and demand sides, opening the possibility for the application of foresight approaches. We note the emergence of a combination of corrective, disruptive and creative roles.

[1]  Gaston Heimeriks,et al.  Technology Foresight as Innovation Policy Instrument – Learning from Science and Technology Studies , 2009 .

[2]  Stefan Schneider,et al.  Improving the business impact of foresight , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[3]  Secondo Rolfo,et al.  Evolution in the rationales of foresight in Europe , 2004 .

[4]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  A New "Industrial Ecology" , 2002, Science.

[5]  Ian Miles,et al.  The Handbook of Technology Foresight - Concepts and Practice , 2008 .

[6]  M. Akrich,et al.  The Future of Key Actors in the European Research Area: Synthesis Paper , 2007 .

[7]  Michael Keenan,et al.  Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience , 2003 .

[8]  Totti Könnölä,et al.  Foresight within ERA-NETs: Experiences from the preparation of an international research program , 2008 .

[9]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand , 1999 .

[10]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  The UK technology foresight programme , 1996 .

[11]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[12]  Technological Policy,et al.  Choosing priorities in science and technology , 1991 .

[13]  Qiao Yan,et al.  ‘Technology foresight towards 2020 in China’: the practice and its impacts , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[14]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Public procurement and innovation?Resurrecting the demand side , 2007 .

[15]  Cornelia Daheim,et al.  Corporate foresight in Europe: from trend based logics to open foresight , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  Attila Havas Devising Futures for Universities in a Multi-Level Structure: A Methodological Experiment , 2008 .

[17]  Karel Klusacek Technology foresight in the Czech Republic , 2004 .

[18]  L. Georghiou Europe's research system must change , 2008, Nature.

[19]  S. Cunningham,et al.  Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods , 2004 .

[20]  Knut Blind,et al.  Regulatory foresight: Methodologies and selected applications , 2008 .

[21]  Arie Rip,et al.  Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands , 1986 .

[22]  H. Chesbrough The Era of Open Innovation , 2003 .

[23]  L. Georghiou,et al.  The higher education sector and its role in research: Status and impact of international future-oriented technology analysis , 2008 .