Policy learning from two rounds of Swedish Technology Foresight Lennart Lübeck Innovation Policy Learning: Change in Thinking - Change in Doing? 23-24.

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.