Foresight activities have often provided support for objectives such as priority-setting, networking and consensual vision-building. In this paper, we draw upon complementary evolutionary perspectives and discuss these objectives from the viewpoint of diversity which may be vital in contexts characterized by technological discontinuities and high uncertainties. We also argue that although the scanning of weak signals has been widely advocated in such contexts, the solicitation of ideas for prospective innovations may provide more focused, action-oriented, and comparable reflections of future developments. For the analysis of such ideas, we develop a collaborative foresight method RPM Screening which consists of phases for the generation, revision, multi-criteria evaluation, and portfolio analysis of innovation ideas. We also report experiences from a pilot project where this method was employed to enhance the work of the Foresight Forum of the Ministry of Trade and Industry in Finland. Encouraging results from this project and other recent applications suggest that RPM Screening can be helpful in foresight processes and the development of shared research agendas.

Abstract: We explore what implications the geographical dispersion of foresight participants and their regional idiosyncrasies have for the management of foresight processes. Specifically, we argue that these kinds of multi-stakeholder processes place demands such as scalability, modularity and dependability on the design and deployment of foresight methodologies. We also report a Finnish foresight process to support the development of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of the European Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform. This process was based on the RPM Screening methodology which consisted of the internet-based solicitation and assessment of research themes, identification of promising research themes through Robust Portfolio Modelling (RPM) 1, and several facilitated workshops.

Abstract not found

In this paper, we report a prospective evaluation process for a major research program for the Finnish forestry and forest industries. To a significant extent, this process was based on fifteen participatory workshops where tools of operational research F most notably multi-criteria methods embedded in a group support system F were deployed to help representatives from industry, the research community, and public administration in the assessment of socio-economic impacts and the identification of further research topics. Drawing upon this case study, we also analyze the preconditions, advantages, and limitations of similar kinds of participatory processes in the implementation of formative and summative evaluations.

In innovation networks, participatory foresight activities can typically have several functions. They can be seen as a tool for supporting decisionmaking on Science and Technology (S&T) priorities, but they can also be expected to contribute to the structures of a network beyond the scope of decision making. Foresight activities are often limited by tight timeframes, budgets and they need to be synchronized with other S&T processes. In this setting there is a need for tools that reflect foresight managers ‟ visions on trade-offs between objectives that are more important than others, and goals that can be achieved, given relevant constraints. This thesis develops, deploys and analyzes decision analytic methodologies for participatory foresight and priority-setting. The methodology enables foresight managers to adjust their foresight process to serve a multitude of goals and place emphasis on the objectives that are seen as most important. Foresight processes can be adjusted to meet

In 2005, the Finnish Government took a decision in principle on the structural development of the public research system. This decision spurred the two main funding agencies – theAcademy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) – to carry out FinnSight 2015, a joint foresight exercise that would provide inputs to this strategy, foster collaboration between these funding agencies and promote foresight and innovation activities at large. Towards these objectives, FinnSight 2015 engaged 10 expert panels which identified key driving forces and characterised focus areas of competences by making extensive use of Internet-based tools and by engaging in intensive deliberations at facilitated workshops. We also describe the policy context and methodological support of FinnSight: specifically, we report how challenges arising from the tight schedule were addressed through the process design and what policy developments have taken place after to the publication of foresight results, in the belief that our analysis may be instructive for the planning of large-scale foresight exercises that need to serve high-level policy objectives subject to demanding time constraints and expectations. Keywords: support foresight; research and innovation policy; innovation studies; group decision 1.

Continuing attempts to align science and technology policies with industrial and societal needs have aroused interest in the determination of research priorities. In this paper, we report a case study where leading experts from industry and public administration were assisted by multicriteria decision analysis in the planning of a collaborative research program for Scandinavian forestry and forest industries. We also address processual and methodological challenges in the deployment of multicriteria methods, and argue that such methods can contribute to the quality of decision support processes in related contexts.

This report is downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/r-index.html

Continuing attempts to align science and technology policies with industrial and societal needs have aroused interest in the determination of research priorities. In this paper, we report a case study where leading experts from industry and public administration were assisted by multicriteria decision analysis in the planning of a collaborative research program for Scandinavian forestry and forest industries. We also address processual and methodological challenges in the deployment of multicriteria methods, and argue that such methods can contribute to the quality of decision support processes in related contexts.