policy learning from two rounds of swedish technology foresight lennart lübeck innovation policy...
TRANSCRIPT
Policy learning from two rounds of Swedish
Technology Foresight
Lennart Lübeck
Innovation Policy Learning: Change in Thinking - Change in Doing?
23-24 May, Stockholm, Sweden
Swedish Foresight History
1996-1998 Feasibility studies
1998-2001 Technology Foresight, first round
1999 “Technology Hindsight”
1999 Panel work
2000 – 01 Implementation
2003-2004 Technology Foresight,
Second round
First Round Objectives
To strengthen a futures-oriented approach in companies and organisations
To identify areas of expertise with potential for growth and renewal in Sweden
Major Features of the First Round
Not initiated by government (but supported) Four public and private sponsors Generous financial support Classical thematic panel approach No Delphi, some scenario use On-line evaluation No detailed plan for implementation at outset,
only dissemination
Panel Reports of the First Round
Only in Swedish
The Foresighted Society (in English)
Successes of the First Round
Wide acceptance of Foresight as a powerful process
“Mindsetting” and networking among participants highly appreciated
Industrial participation very satisfactory The reaction was good, the action better than
expected
Lessons Learned for the Second Round
Mission definition very important Need for “scientific guidance” of process Societal problems must be professionally
treated Risk analysis should be included More time allowed for analysis
Mission Definition
Who are the most important users?
Which are the questions to which they really need the answers?
Which process can find these answers?
Second Round Objectives• Create the basis for setting priorities in R&D and education• Create a broad basis for other in-depth foresight studies to
be performed in other sectors of society • Increase understanding about the role of technology for
Swedish prosperity• Identify improvement areas in the Swedish innovation
system• Increase long-term thinking and pro-activity• Provide an arena for a broad discussion about technology-
related issues about the future
Major Features of the Second Round
Encouraged but not organised by government
Even wider sponsorship
Totally different panel approach
Use of Delphi and scenarios considered (but not implemented)
Sponsors of the Second Round
The Swedish Industrial Development Fund The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering
Sciences (IVA) The Knowledge Foundation The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) The Swedish Business Development Agency
(NUTEK) The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise The Swedish Research Council The Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
(VINNOVA)
Six “operational” questions
• Which images of the future do we believe in? • Which are the most important strategic choices
to make? • What knowledge do we need in order to make
these strategic choices? • Which areas can provide Sweden with most
growth? • What barriers and opportunities are there in the
Swedish innovation system? • How should we continue foresight activity in
the future?
Five New Panels
Other national foresights - an international perspective
Updating the first Swedish Technology Foresight Technology’s context (geopolitics, globalisation,
demography, change of values etc.) Paradigm-shaping innovations Synthesis and recommendations
Technology Foresight II
Other national foresights
Updating TF1(Six panels)
Other input
Technology’s context
Paradigm-shaping innovations
Synthesis
Other national foresights
Seven update reports
Choosing Strategies for Sweden
Inspiration for Innovation
To be determined
Activities Reports
Communications & dialogue
Foresight methodology
Identification of future research-based growth areas
The wider context
Independent
Backwards continuity
International benchmarking
Main messages
Sweden must dare to prioritize and specialize in both R&D and regional terms
Sweden faces six crucial strategic choices
The country’s future competitiveness and success require decisions and actions now
Non-decisions will have consequences as great as active decisions, and usually they are worse
Sweden is a small part of the world, so we need to take concerted action
In order to prioritize, choose, make decisions and take such concerted action, we need a vision: a shared focus for the years ahead
Our key strategic choices
Sweden – a part of the world
Prioritizing and focusing
Concentrating our resources on investments and projects for the future
Modernizing public sector commitments
Taking advantage of human resources
Ensuring a sustainable society
Web site
www.tekniskframsyn.nu
So much for what was done…..
What about Policy Learning?
Let us have a look at the evaluation
made by Technopolis…
The six “operational” questions not really addressed (Technopolis evaluation)
• Which images of the future do we believe in?
• Which are the most important strategic choices to make?
• What knowledge do we need in order to make these strategic choices?
• Which areas can provide Sweden with most growth?
• What barriers and opportunities are there in the Swedish innovation system?
• How should we continue foresight activity in the future?
Operational use of reports needs answers to these questions(Technopolis evaluation)
• What are the steps for moving from options to making choices?
• How would one make the choice? • Using what criteria? • Based on what understanding of the likely
consequences of alternative choices? • Who would make the choices? • Based on what kind of legitimacy?
Lessons about context(Technopolis evaluation)
• Identifying customers and connecting with the context are key to achieving policy impacts
• Lack of absorptive and strategic intelligence capacity in the Swedish ministries
• “We have politics but no policy.”
• Agencies make policy, so they are the main beneficiaries of Foresight
Overall conclusions(Technopolis evaluation)
• Moving from technology to a more social form of foresight was too ambitious
• Intervention logic was not well worked out • No customers able to take action on the
findings • Ends with a call for debate rather than a clear
set of conclusions or options• This is not the time for another Foresight
So we did not quite achieve what we set out to do, but nevertheless the second Technology Foresight was very useful, because….
Overall conclusions(Technopolis evaluation)
• As with other foresights, process benefits were important
• Network relationships have been strengthened, and this has led to new policy initiatives
• Now easier to co-ordinate within the fragmented Swedish R&D funding system
• Foresight and other debates led to major shift in Swedish research policy towards use-oriented R&D and building critical mass.
And the sponsors were happy.....
The Swedish Industrial Development Fund The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering
Sciences (IVA) The Knowledge Foundation The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) The Swedish Business Development Agency
(NUTEK) The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise The Swedish Research Council The Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
(VINNOVA)
Final statement(Technopolis evaluation)
The Foresight experience should highlight for policymakers the difficulties of setting priorities in thefragmented Swedish system.
In this context, for the second Foresight alone to achieveits objectives is arguably ‘mission impossible’. The need for a debate about the future has not gone away,but an equally urgent debate is needed about governanceof research and innovation funding in Sweden.