AIT Austrian Institute of Technology

Djordje Pinter

Applications, Limitations and Effects of Corporate Foresight

Methods – Towards an Evaluation Framework for

Innovation Management

XXIV ISPIM Conference,

Helsinki, Finland: 16-19 June 2013

Corporate Foresight – Definition and Research Objectives

Corporate foresight is a function (e.g. Slaughter 1998), process (e.g. Reger

2001) or capability (e.g. Major et al. 2001) enabling firms to adapt and

innovate by assessing weak signals using specific methods.

Definition

• Lacks a framework for evaluating methods (corporate setting)

• Lacks consideration of human cognition and psychology

• Lacks adaptation to innovation management stages

2

Research

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management

• Uncertainty avoidance

• Identifying weak signals for disruptions

• Identifying market developments and niche emergence

• Improving portfolio management

• Fostering creativity

• Giving prospective and framing

• Evaluating opportunities and solutions during earliest stages

• Reinforcing learning processes

Benefits for Innovation Management

3

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Aligning Models

Screening Interpretation

& Creation Response

SCREENING &

IDEA GENERATION SELECTION

DEVELOPMENT

& TESTING

COMMERCIALI-

SATION & LAUNCH

Identification of customer needs,

risks, new technologies &

competitive intelligence

Commitment, internal

& external

communication

Evaluation, options, solutions,

adaption of existing projects

Identification Communication Learning

Organizational

learning

processes

Source: Author's representation based on: (Daft and Weick, 1984; Leitner, 2013).

4

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Evaluation Criteria

5

1. Creativity:

• Fostering ideas, visioning etc.

2. Information processing capability:

• Amount of variables, type of linkages, interactions etc.

3. Complexity absorption:

• Ability for technology assessment, capturing dynamics of systems etc.

4. Execution:

• Simplicity of execution, stimulation of learning, tacit to explicit

knowledge transformation capability etc.

5. Robustness and sensitivity:

• Sensitivity to information input, sensitivity to cognition and group

biases etc.

6. Acceptance:

• Degree of participation, communicability of results etc.

Source: Author's work based on: (Müller, 2008 p. 52; Reger, 2006 p. 318)

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Methods Review I

Anonymity of responses

Controlled feedback

Enhancing capabilities with

complex problems reduces group

biases, but still e.g. confirmation

biases

Creativity is limited (“reinforced

ideas“)

Execution process: time

consuming & discrete black box

Information interplay is limited

Room for creative interplay

Improves decision-making

Overcoming overconfidence and

tunnel vision

Easily communicable

Suitable for long term analysis

Several group and cognition

biases in play

Prone to influences

Very limited information

processing capacity

Scenario Delphi

6

Source: (Varum and Melo, 2007; Schoemaker, 1993, 1995; Lichtenthaler, 2005; Cialkowska et al., 2008; Day and Bobeva, 2005; Helmer, 1983; Landeta, 2006; Linstone and Turoff,

1975; Rowe and Wright, 1999; Yousuf, 2007; Ecken et al. 2011).

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Methods Review II

High information processing

capability (unbiased)

Absorb complexity and dynamics

Transparency of mental models

Enhances organizational learning

Risk of resource intensity

Trade-of: participation vs.

execution

Scepticism towards quantitative

modelling hinders acceptance

Excellent possibility of

participation

Acceptance of results

Structures innovation processes

Increases competitive power

• Focus on execution

Creative room is limited

Linear relationship model

(predominant)

Limited information processing

Roadmaps Simulations

7

Source: (Da Costa et al. 2003, 2005; Lichtenthaler, 2008; Lischka and Gemunden, 2008; Petrick and Echols, 2004; Phaal et al., 2004; Drucker 2004).

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Exemplified Evaluation

RoadmappingScenario

DelphiSimulations0

1

2

3

4

5

Roadmapping

Scenario

Delphi

Simulations

8

Source: own.

Corporate Foresight and Innovation Management –

Conclusion and Suggestion

SCREENING IDEA GENERATION

& SELECTION

DEVELOPMENT

& TESTING

COMMERCIALI-

SATION & LAUNCH

Delphi technique

Scenarios

Simulations

Roadmaps

o

t

h

e

r

o

t

h

e

r

9

Combining methods enhances potential benefits for innovation management

Source: Author's representation based on: (Cooper, 1990).

AIT Austrian Institute of Technology your ingenious partner

Djordje Pinter

Austrian Institute of Technology

Foresight & Policy Development

Djordje.pinter.fl@ait.ac.at

References I Cialkowska, M., Adamowski, T., Piotrowski, P., Kiejna, A., 2008. What Is the Delphi Method? Strengths and

Shortcomings. Psychiatria Polska 42, 5–16.

Cooper, R.G., 1990. Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products. Business Horizons 33,

44–54.

Da Costa, O., Boden, M., Punie, Y., Zappacosta, M., 2003. Science and Technology Roadmapping: from

Industry to Public Policy (IPTS Report No. 73). The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E., 1984. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. The Academy of

Management Review 9, 284–295.

Day, J., Bobeva, M., 2005. A Generic Toolkit for the Successful Management of Delphi Studies. The

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology 3, 103–116.

Drucker, P., 2004. Letter to Ackoff on the Occasion of the 3rd International Conference on Systems

Thinking in Management (icstm) Held at the University of Pennsylvania May 19–24, 2004.

Ecken, P., Gnatzy, T., von der Gracht, H.A., 2011. Desirability Bias in Foresight: Consequences for Decision

Quality Based on Delphi Results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78, 1654–1670.

Helmer, O., 1983. Looking Forward: A Guide to Futures Research. Sage Publications.

Landeta, J., 2006. Current Validity of the Delphi Method in Social Sciences. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change 73, 467–482.

Leitner, K.-H., 2013. Presentation of the Foresight & Policy Development Department, AIT at Infineon.

Lichtenthaler, E., 2005. The Choice of Technology Intelligence Methods in Multinationals: Towards a

Contingency Approach. International Journal of Technology Management 32, 388.

Lichtenthaler, U., 2008. Integrated Roadmaps for Open Innovation. Research-Technology

Management 51, 45.

References II Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Pub.

Co., Advanced Book Program.

Lischka, J.-M., Gemunden, H.G., 2008. Technology Roadmapping in Manufacturing: A Case Study at

Siemens Ag. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 4, 201–214.

Major, E., Asch, D., Cordey-Hayes, M., 2001. Foresight as a core competence. Futures 33, 91–107.

Müller, A.W., 2008. Strategic Foresight - Prozesse strategischer Trend- und Zukunftsforschung in

Unternehmen (Dissertation). Universität St. Gallen, Hochschule für Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und

Sozialwissenschaften (HSG), St. Gallen.

Petrick, I.J., Echols, A.E., 2004. Technology Roadmapping in Review: A Tool for Making Sustainable New

Product Development Decisions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71, 81–100.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., Probert, D.R., 2004b. Collaborative Technology Roadmapping: Network

Development and Research Prioritisation. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 1,

39–55.

Reger, G., 2001. Technology Foresight in Companies: From an Indicator to a Network and Process

Perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 13, 533–553.

Reger, G., 2006. Technologie-Früherkennung: Organisation und Prozess, in: Gassmann, O., Kobe, C.

(Eds.), Management Von Innovation Und Risiko. Quantensprünge in Der Entwicklung Erfolgreich Managen.

Springer, Berlin, pp. 303–330.

Rowe, G., Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis. International

Journal of Forecasting 15, 353–375.

Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1993. Multiple Scenario Development: Its Conceptual and Behavioral Foundation.

Strategic Management Journal 14, 193–213.

References III Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1995. Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking. Sloan Management Review

36, 25–40.

Slaughter, R.A., 1998. Futures Studies as an Intellectual and Applied Discipline. American Behavioral

Scientist 42, 372–385.

Varum, C.A., Melo, C., 2007. The Enterprise of the Future: Trends and Scenarios towards

Competitiveness. Presented at the 3rd University of Strathclyde Conference “Foresight - Learning the

Future faster,” Glasgow, UK.

Yousuf, M.I., 2007. Using Experts’ Opinions Through Delphi Technique. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation 12, 1–8.