Policy learning from two rounds of Swedish Technology Foresight Lennart Lbeck Innovation Policy Lear

1
Policy learning from two rounds of Swedish
Technology Foresight Lennart
LübeckInnovation Policy Learning Change in
Thinking - Change in Doing?23-24 May, Stockholm,
Sweden
2
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

3
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

4
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

5
Panel Reports of the First Round
Only in Swedish
6
The Foresighted Society (in English)
7
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

8
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

9
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?

10
Second Round Objectives

• Create the basis for setting priorities in RD
  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

11
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)

12
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)

13
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?

14
Five New Panels

• Other national foresights - an international
  perspective
• Updating the first Swedish Technology Foresight
• Technologys context (geopolitics, globalisation,
  demography, change of values etc.)
• Paradigm-shaping innovations
• Synthesis and recommendations

15
Technology Foresight II
16
Main messages

• Sweden must dare to prioritize and specialize in
  both RD and regional terms
• Sweden faces six crucial strategic choices
• The countrys 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

17
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

18
Web site

• www.tekniskframsyn.nu

19
So much for what was done..

• What about Policy Learning?
• Let us have a look at the evaluation
• made by Technopolis

20
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?

21
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?

22
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

23
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

24
So we did not quite achieve what we set out to
do, but nevertheless the second Technology
Foresight was very useful, because.
25
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 RD funding system
• Foresight and other debates led to major shift in
  Swedish research policy towards use-oriented RD
  and building critical mass.

26
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)

27
Final statement(Technopolis evaluation)

• The Foresight experience should highlight for
  policy
• makers the difficulties of setting priorities in
  the
• fragmented Swedish system.
• In this context, for the second Foresight alone
  to achieve
• its 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
  governance
• of research and innovation funding in Sweden.