Understanding "Fora of Strategic Intelligence for Research and Innovation" Final Report

Transcription

1 Understanding "Fra f Strategic Intelligence fr Research and Innvatin" The PRIME Frum Research Prject Final Reprt Jakb Edler (Fraunhfer-ISI); Pierre-Benit Jly (INRA), Stefan Kuhlmann (Fraunhfer-ISI, University f Utrecht), Maria Nedeva (PREST), Til Prpp (University f Twente), Arie Rip (University f Twente), Sascha Ruhland (Fraunhfer-ISI), Duncan Thmas (PREST)* April 2006 * With the indispensable intellectual input f Andrew Stirling (SPRU)

2

3 Cntent 1. Intrductin The cnceptual backgrund: Understanding the rle f Fra in RTD-plicy-making Underlying theretical literature Twards a definitin and cnceptualisatin f Fra A sample f Fra 13 cases The phenmenlgy f Fra - a multidimensinal categrizatin scheme Functins f Fra and Strategic Intelligence The Gvernance Functin (plicy perspective n Fra) Gvernance functin 1: General, nn-directed plicy discurse Gvernance functin 2: Plicy planning / pririty setting Gvernance functin 3: Reslutin f cnflict / stalemates Gvernance functin 4: Plicy infrmatin n specific issues Gvernance functin 5: Imprving applicatin f intelligence in plicy-making and respnsiveness f analysts The rle f strategic intelligence the analysts perspective Lessns fr PRIME The added value f the Frum Thesaurus References... 47

4

5 1. Intrductin The prject Gvernance f science and innvatin plicy has always been a cmplex task. Fr many reasns this cmplexity seems t cntinuusly grw: the science and innvatin prcess itself has becme mre cmplex and uncertain, the number and hetergeneity f actrs invlved in this prcess has grwn, and with it the plurality f interests and values, and the brders between public and private have becme mre blurred. In rder t cpe with these challenges, the plicy prcess is becming mre evidence-based and at the same time has becme mre inter-active. These interactins include plicy-makers, public researchers and industry as well as experts that prvide intelligence in rder t infrm the prcess. The PRIME Frum prject has analysed ne means f rganising this plicy-riented discurse: the s-called Fra. As a starting pint, it has defined Fra as institutinalised spaces specifically designed fr deliberatin r ther interactin between hetergeneus actrs with the purpse f infrming and cnditining the frm and directin f strategic scial chices in the gvernance f science and technlgy. Fra can have tw related and interdependent rles: (1) Mutual learning f plicy analysts, plicy-makers and relevant stakehlders; (2) Imprving the functining f R&I plicy. This PRIME Frum-prject had a twfld bjective. First, it wanted t cntribute t a better understanding f the shape and functin f such Fra, and secnd, it sught t develp and test a web-based Thesaurus, a database t cllect, structure and analyse Fra systematically. This activity shall nw be the basis fr cnsideratins as regards the initiating and mderating f a Frum by PRIME. T d s, the prject develped a characterisatin scheme f Fra, peratinalised, set up and tested a differentiated Thesaurus, selected, categrised and analysed 13 real-life Fra, drew sme general cnceptual lessns as regards the gvernance functin f Fra, the rle f strategic intelligence (SI) in thse Fra, and frmulated sme hints as regards a ptential Frum t be set up by the PRIME netwrk. 1

6 As the prject was explratry, the cnceptualisatin and the empirical wrk were cnducted in parallel and as an iterative, inductive prcess. Starting frm a first cnceptualisatin develped in the FORUM wrkshp prject 2004, the cncept was further develped thrugh discussins f the empirical cases and the necessity t develp a cmprehensive Thesaurus t present the cases in a unifrm and meaningful way. The prject has resulted in six deliverables: Cnceptualisatin: A systematic template t characterise and explain Fra, which is nw the structure fr the Thesaurus; a web-based pilt applicatin f this Thesaurus, already t be tested by the interested cmmunity and enabling future set up f a far reaching Thesaurus: MEFrumCase%2fCaseStudy.aspx; 13 Frum cases within this Thesaurus; a User Handbk fr the Thesaurus in rder t explain the functinalities f the web-based Thesaurus fr users f this tl (a shrt sectin n the value f the Thesaurus is added at the end f this reprt, chapter 7); a Technical Reprt fr the Thesaurus, t be used by institutins that plan t set up such a database themselves; A final reprt: a cnceptual paper n Fra (this reprt). All deliverables next t this cnceptual paper can be fund n the web-page f the prject and have been sent t the PRIME netwrk management late February Wider benefit f the prject The results f the prject may be taken up by different kinds f interested actrs. They culd be the basis fr a large, encmpassing database n Fra in Eurpe, t be rganised fr example by institutins like ITPS r intelligence netwrks like ESTO r ERAWATCH. They culd then als be a basis fr scientific analysing f Fra in a much mre systematic way, whereby the cnceptual apprach taken may be further imprved and differentiated. Mrever, the Thesaurus is a ptential intelligence and learning tl fr plicy-makers, it culd infrm abut existing Fra that can be searched fr thrugh varius criteria such as issue area, initiating actr, methds used, rganisatin and interactin, effects etc.1 Thus, nt nly cntacts between actrs interested in similar issues r 1 A deeper explanatin f the functinality f the Thesaurus can be fund in the User Handbk als prvided as a deliverable, t be fund n the web-page: se%2fcasestudy.aspx 2

7 rganisatinal aspects culd be easily established, but als lessns may be drawn as regards gd practice in bringing strategic intelligence (SI) and plicy-makers tgether effectively and efficiently. The purpse and structure f this reprt This reprt explains the theretical backgrund, lays ut the cnceptual structure f the Thesaurus and draws sme analytical cnclusins. The cre f the cncept has been the definitin f a number f dimensins that shall enable us t describe and make sense f the very hetergeneus frms f Fra. The paper starts by presenting the mtivatin f dealing with Fra in the first place as well as the theretical underpinnings f the Fra cncept (chapter 2). It then presents the 13 cases in a nutshell in rder t set the scene and lay the basis fr interpretatin (chapter 3). It ges n by enumerating and explaining the dimensins t describe and characterise Fra as we have develped them (chapter 4), prvides a typlgy f Fra alng the tw majr dimensins f (a) their functin in the gvernance f S&T innvatin plicy and (b) the rle f strategic intelligence in the varius types f Fra, fllwed by sme general cnclusins as fr the relatin f frm t the cntext and functinality f Fra (chapter 5), adds sme lessns as regards Fra that culd be designed by PRIME members (chapter 6), and finishes with a paragraph n the added value f the Frum Thesaurus (chapter 7). 2. The cnceptual backgrund: Understanding the rle f Fra in RTD-plicy-making Chapter 2 presents the mtivatin f dealing with Fra in the first place and the theretical underpinnings as well as the definitin f the Frum cncept. 2.1 Underlying theretical literature In the fields f innvatin research, institutinal and evlutinary ecnmics and scial studies f science and technlgy imprtant c-rdinated understandings have develped arund key cncepts such as natinal innvatin systems (Lundvall 1992, Edquist 1997, Nelssn 1993), technlgical regimes, actr netwrks and strategic intelligence (Carlssn / Stankiewicz 1995; Calln 1992; Kemp 2004; Kuhlmann 2002, Kuhlmann et. al. 1999). The starting pint in this strand f literature is the (grwing) cmplexity f plicy-making. In research and innvatin (R&I) arenas f plicymaking in particular arenas characterised by multi-level, multi-actr gvernance negtiating actrs with different respnsibilities pursue different, partly cntradicting interests (plicy-makers define prgrammes, allcate budgets; researchers define themes, purchase equipment; industry lks fr cmpetitive advantages...), represent different stakehlders perspectives, cnstruct different perceptins f reality (e.g. Calln 1992), refer t diverging institutinal frames (Schön / Rein 1994). Thereby, given pwer structures and the shape f are- 3

8 nas may vary cnsiderably acrss natinal states, regins r issue areas. Nrmally, state authrities in (reginal, natinal, transnatinal) multi-actr arenas f innvatin plicy play an imprtant, but nt a dminant rle. In many cases they perfrm the functin mre f a mediatr, facilitating alignment between stakehlders, equipped with a shadw f hierarchy (Scharpf 1993), rather than perating as a tp-dwn steering pwer. Eventually, successful plicy-making means cmprmising thrugh re-framing stakehlders perspectives and jint prductin f cnsensus (Kuhlmann 2002). Hence, nrmative R&I plicy ratinales (market failure; public gds;...) nrmally d nt rule the de fact behaviur f decisin-making actrs in innvatin plicy arenas: rather such nrmative rientatins are emplyed as ne amng several means f brrwing legitimisatin, while decisins actually are driven by attempts at cmprmising between quite diverse interests. Other literature, which is indirectly relevant, is critical thery (Habermas 1996, Renn 1992); deliberative demcracy (Parkins / Rss 2005; see the cntributins in Bhmann / Rehg 1997; Dryzek / List 2003); and cnstructivist analysis f science plicy (e.g. Kemp / Rip / Scht 2002; Wynne 1992). Cntributins address issues f the interpretive study, practical design and nrmative evaluatin f different structures and prcesses fr participatry engagement and deliberatin. This can be f particular interest when designing Fra as there are different styles f engagement, t which Frum set-up needs t respnd. These styles range frm participatry empwerment f therwise marginal perspectives, t deliberative integratin f cntrasting bdies f knwledge, negtiatin between cntending rganised interests, and representative aggregatin f hetergeneus sci-cultural values and attitudes. Furthermre, reflexivity in research and innvatin plicy n the ne hand and participatry engagement and deliberatin n the ther hand have latterly cme t cnverge in the gvernance f science and technlgy. The synergies and cmplementarities are bvius, but remarkably under-explred and unexplited (Dems 2004). There are ptentially highly significant practical implicatins fr the design and cnduct f imprtant plicy activities in fields such as eclgical mdernisatin (Hajer 1995), sustainable innvatin (Berkhut 2002), precautinary appraisal (Stirling / Meyer 2000), extended fresight (e.g. Martin 1995), and participatry technlgy assessment (Jly / Assuline 2001). Likewise, there remain a number f ambiguities and ptential tensins. It is the purpse f this prpsed prject systematically t map these challenges and pprtunities. The interest-driven mde f gvernance is reflected by the fact that in many cases actual plicymaking ccurs in inter-institutinal, interactive trading znes between actrs with different backgrunds and interests. These issue-specific cmmunicatins and interactins that lead t the develpment f plicy and finally t binding plicy decisins shall be 4

9 by ways f a wrking definitin defined as plicy spaces. 2 In these interactins all kinds f stakehlders cmmunicate, translate infrmatin and apprpriate knwledge frm thers, and thus prepare the grunds fr plicymaking and decisin (e.g. van der Meulen / Rip 1998). Over time spaces may institutinalise (e.g. inter-ministerial wrking grups; infrmal public-private netwrks; als ld-bys-netwrks ). With respect t the challenges identified by PRIME, there is grwing evidence f and a cntinuus need fr new inter-institutinal, interactive spaces fr plicymaking, mbilising hetergeneus actrs, including stakehlders (industry, NGOs,...); plicymakers (incl. demcratic representatin); and analysts (frm varius disciplines) in rder t vercme institutinal inertia and plitical deadlcks, e.g. by integrating nrmally excluded relevant actrs, r speeding up discursive learning prcesses amng traditinal actrs, etc. One area that is at the heart f (internatinal) R&I plicy making and in which such spaces have traditinally been imprtant and played a substantial rle in the plicy debate has been fr example the debate n risk and uncertainty cnnected t new technlgies and their ptential explitatin (Marglis 1996) and, mre bradly, the scial appraisal f technlgy (Stirling 2004; Rip et. al. 1996; Williams / Edge 1996). Given that R&I plicies are t be develped under increasing cmplexity and uncertainty, they are als becming mre evidence-based and increasingly rely n scientific and analytical input prvided by surces f strategic intelligence. We define strategic intelligence as a set f surces f infrmatin and explrative as well as analytical (theretical; heuristic; methdlgical) tls emplyed t prduce useful insight in the actual r ptential csts and effects f public r private plicy and management (Kuhlmann 2002). The creatin f new spaces even mre increases the demand fr strategic intelligence based infrmatin, as the ptential fr new spaces has t be identified and actrs have t be equipped with analytical insights. Over the last tw decades, cnsiderable effrts have been made t imprve the design and cnduct f effective R&I plicies taking advantage f and imprving strategic intelligence. In particular, frmalised methdlgies, based n the arsenal f scial and ecnmic sciences have been intrduced and develped which attempt t analyse past behaviur (evaluatin), review technlgical ptins fr the future (fresight), and assess the implicatins f adpting particular ptins (technlgy assessment). Als, as a cmplement t evaluatin, fresight and technlgy assessment, ther intelligence tls such as cmparative studies f the natinal, reginal r sectral technlgical cmpetitiveness, benchmarking methdlgies, etc. were develped and used. Strategic intelli- 2 There are varius definitins f space, the ne given here highlights the plicy functin f space, while a mre general definitin prvided by van Lente and Rip (1998) and used als in the PRIME TN final reprt defines space as a lcus fr particular kinds f events, an pprtunity fr particular actins, and a gradient fr, and thus a cnstraint n, the range f actins (PRIME TN final reprt, draft versin July 2004, p. 46). 5

10 gence is being prduced bth by research-based grups (like many PRIME members) and by an increasing number f semi-public specialised institutins like the Dutch Advisry Bard fr Science and Technlgy, the German Science Cuncil (Wissenschaftsrat), the Eurpean Netwrk f Scientific Advisry Bdies (EURAB), etc. Plicymakers at reginal, natinal and internatinal levels explited their results in the frmulatin f new plicies. We nte that the cupling f SI t prfessinal grups is cntingent n the SI definitin. Brrwing frm anthrplgical studies, i.e. flk thery, there is reasn t speak f the flk SI f lay peple, fr instance, nn-prfessinal interest grups in health care issues. SI must nt remain exclusive t scial scientists, especially in Fra. Other actrs d prduce and use a frm f SI, and vice versa, evaluate SI ffered t them (fr instance, by scial scientists) in terms f their wn SI. Ptentially, this pens up t analyse a number f Fra where scial scientists might nt even be present, and with the change in this scpe the gals f analysis can shift then, t (fr instance, twards answering questins such as hw t make Fra, representing new mdes f gvernance, mre inclusive, mre demcratic; r whether the inclusin f prfessinal SI prviders actually allws fr better decisin-making vis-à-vis Fra where SI peple are marginal r nt present). In rder t demnstrate the feasibility and added value f a Frum thesaurus fr the PRIME netwrk, and in line with the means and resurces f the PRIME-funded prject cntributing twards the thesaurus, the fcus f the prject was limited t Fra including plicy makers and prfessinal SI prviders, research-based and/r institutinalized. Bth the different frms f discurse, interactin and learning prcesses n the ne hand and strategic intelligence, n the ther hand, exist within a wide variety f institutinal settings and at many rganisatinal levels, scattered acrss Eurpe and the glbe; they are nt arranged as an ensemble. As a cnsequence, nn-traditinal spaces and Fra are difficult t discern, access and use. This situatin invlves bth psitive and prblematic features: The diversity, based n hetergeneus disciplines, the bttm-up character f initiatives may be seen as a surce f creativity and innvatin. On the ther hand many initiatives are nly partly based n research int new knwledge regimes and changing gvernance (PRIME); they are weakly inter-linked, are nt easily accessible and underrepresented in new EU member states; there are n quality standards, etc. In practical terms, the mbilisatin f PRIME`s distributed intelligence wuld allw access t interesting R&I discurse structures and help t create inter-perability acrss lcatins and types f intelligence. 6

11 2.2 Twards a definitin and cnceptualisatin f Fra Against this cnceptual backgrund, Fra shall be defined as institutinalised spaces specifically designed fr pre-plitical deliberatin r ther interactin between hetergeneus actrs with the purpse f infrming and cnditining the frm and directin f strategic scial chices in the gvernance f science and technlgy. Exhibit 1: Frum Design In principle, Fra are pre-plitical, they assist the plicy-making prcess, they serve the infrmatin f plicy-makers and ther stakehlders and by the interactin f experts and plicymakers/stakehlders help experts t understand issue areas better and refine their reflectin, analysis and deliberatin (mutual learning) (see exhibit 1). As Fra are an integral part f the emergence and functinality f new spaces, they shape these spaces t cnsiderable degree. In sum, Fra have tw related rles (1) Mutual learning f plicy analysts, plicy-makers and relevant stakehlders; (2) Imprving the functining f R&I plicy. They explit these mediating and facilitating functins by supprting the articulatin and debate f structural issues f R&I plicy, the mbilisatin f distributed strategic intelligence, and the establishment and shaping f new interactive spaces. 7

12 An adjusted definitin fr the Thesaurus One premise f this wrk was that the Thesaurus and thus the cncept shuld be understandable and straightfrward, as users f the Thesaurus need t grasp the majr dimensins f the cncept. Thus, a secnd definitin f Fra mre accessible t nnacademic users f the Thesaurus - has been drafted, defining Fra as a structured, mre r less persistent interactin f different grups (plicy makers, scial scientists, scientists, industry, and ther stakehlders) that is specifically designed fr infrming and cnditining the frm and directin f strategic scial chices in the gvernance f science and technlgy. In the PRIME Frum prject we cncentrated n the rles strategic intelligence prvided by scial scientists can play in discursive interactin fr plicy-making. We acknwledge that the rle f strategic intelligence prviders varies cnsiderably. Sme f the structures we cnsider as Fra may even wrk withut prfessinal analysts, but rely n tld strategic intelligence frm lay peple such as lbby grups. Hwever, ur fcus n SI Fra is because at this explratry stage we are interested in the cntributins the scial scientists can make and hw t imprve these, withut limiting ur descriptin and analysis t that aspect. The ntin f the Frum' subsumes a wide range f different institutinal structures and prcedural styles. Examples might include, fr instance, pen-ended prgrammes such as extended Fresight initiatives, statutry stakehlder cnsultatin prcesses, participatry hrizn scanning and interactive and cnstructive technlgy assessment as well as mre specific and bunded exercises such as cnsensus cnferences, citizen s juries and fcus grup studies. At the same time, the ntin f the Frum remains a narrwer, less structured and mre specific cncept than the verarching and spntaneusly emergent plitical and discursive spaces within which these institutins are situated. Examples f the kind f spaces which are reciprcally infrmed, cnditined and mediated by such Fra' include general debates ver the implementatin in the gvernance f science and technlgy f plicy imperatives n sustainability and precautin, as well as mre particular sectral discurses arund issues such as the use f GM technlgy in agriculture, the applicatin f clning techniques in medicine and chices between nuclear and renewable strategies twards lw carbn energy supply futures. The current general debate ver the pprtunities, challenges and uncertainties assciated with the advent f nantechnlgy cnstitutes just ne example f such a space. The breadth and hetergeneity f the range f initiatives and cntexts that are encmpassed by the cncept f Fra', raises at an early stage a frmidable challenge fr a prject riented twards the infrming f practical plicy making. We are faced at the utset with a bewildering array f different tls, methds, prcedures and framewrks (Renn). There are different styles f strategic intelligence n which such initia- 8

13 tives might fcus, including: technlgy assessment (Lveridge 1996), technlgy fresight (Martin 1995), and research evaluatin (Kuhlmann 2003). All f these may be mre r less participatry r deliberative in character, ptentially including candidate Fra designs such as cnsensus cnferences (Jss and Durant 1995), citizens panels (Renn et al. 1995), negtiated rule-making (Striegnitz 2006), deliberative mapping (Davies et al 2003), participatry multi-criteria analysis (Stirling 2006), scenari wrkshps (Berkhut 2002), fcus grups (Grve-White et. al. 1997), cntingent valuatin (Henley; Spash 1993), as well as varius frms f deliberative and pinin plling. A basic characterisatin f Fra includes, at least, the cntext f the Frum, i.e. the issue-specific space in which it perates and the very issue the Frum tackles within these emerging r develping space. Furthermre, participants f Fra assign a specific purpse t it. This explicit purpse might be different fr different participants, it might evlve ver time and it might be accmpanied by hidden agendas. Finally, Fra are smehw institutinalised, i.e. they take specific, mre r less flexible rganisatinal frms and develp certain rules, nrms and principles that gvern the interactin. Beynd these basic cncepts, the academic literatures referred t abve substantiate a series f imprtant differentiating categries r dimensins fr the characterizatin and finally appraisal f Fra. These categries culd nt be directly translated int useful vcabulary and tls fr the PRIME-Frum prject. Rather, the prject was cnfrnted with the need t practically evaluate many f these cncepts in light f the nging study f a variety f Fra. The iterative prcess led t drawing up a number f Frum categries. This is the tpic f the third sectin f the cnceptual paper. 3. A sample f Fra 13 cases In rder t sharpen and imprve the typlgy and phenmenlgy f Fra and t cnstruct a template, 13 Frum cases have been selected and analysed. This analysis has been the basis fr the inductive cnceptualisatin in this prject. They are dcumented in the pilt installatin f the Thesaurus.3 T get an idea f ur cverage and t understand ur interpretatin in the subsequent chapters, this chapter shrtly summarises the 13 Fra cvered in the pilt Thesaurus. 3 Case%2fCaseStudy.aspx 9

14 Frum Austrian Evaluatin Platfrm Cperative Indicatr Develpment COS-Wrkshps Deliberative Mapping FUTUR Descriptin The Platfrm FTEVAL is a highly institutinalised netwrk f analysts, plicy-makers and prgramme managers in the filed f FTR plicy. The fficial missin f the platfrm is "t encurage mre, better and mre transparent evaluatins fr an ptimal strategic planning f RTD-plicy in Austria and t develp a culture f evaluatin tgether with decisin-makers in the field f Austrian technlgy and research plicy." A cperative mechanism, cmprising a representative steering cmmittee, an independent peratr and wrking grups frm thematic areas was set up in rder t prduce Science and Technlgy (S&T) indicatrs in France. In this frame, the cnceptin and prductin f indicatrs (n scientific prductin, human resurces, funding, intellectual prperty rights, and cntributin f public research t public plicy) were perfrmed in a multi-actr, cperative setting. The Cnsultative Cmmittee f Sectr Cuncils fr Research and Develpment (COS) in the Netherlands ffers space fr cnsultatin between a number f sectr cuncils. COS rganized a number f wrkshps (with high status) in the late 1980s and early-tmid 1990s, which functined as Fra in the sense that analysts and actrs were invited t cntribute t the chsen theme (science plicy issues) and there was discussin bth abut the value f strategic intelligence and methds, as well as abut actual science plicy issues. The sectr cuncils are tripartite rganizatins (sciety, including trade and industry; gvernment; researchers), which partake in explring scientific and scial trends, jintly articulating sectr specific research pririties, and n the basis f these fresight activities, deal with trends in science and technlgy. Deliberative Mapping is an innvative methd f public cnsultatin which integrates expert and citizen assessments and emphasises diversity and scial learning as the basis fr rbust, demcratic, and accuntable decisin-making. The Frum is lking at cntentius ptins fr reslving the gap between the demand fr kidney transplants (e.g. due t increased life expectancy, lwer rad accidents etc.) and the available supply f kidneys (e.g. frm legal and/r illegal dnrs). Deliberative Mapping is als cncerned with methdlgy develpment and testing fr kinds f Fra t imprve science and technlgy decisin-making i.e. citizens and specialists infrming decisins n science and technlgy (frm Deliberative Mapping prmtinal briefing 2) and fstering mre prductive discussins between specialists and members f the public abut cmplex plicy issues where there is n bvius way frward. FUTUR is nt a classical fresight activity but can be seen in a series f fresight activities in Germany. FUTUR is riented twards the identificatin and inclusin f scietal needs in future research agendas and serves as a means f pririty setting fr future innvatin-riented research plicies. Interdisciplinary, prblem-riented s-called "Lead Visins" (Leitvisinen) are suppsed t be the majr utcmes f the prcess. They shall reflect the demand fr research and be translated int publicly funded research prgrammes r prjects. Participatin f a brader audience in varius kinds f activities and the cmbinatin f different creativity, cmmunicatin, and analytical tls are additinal characteristics f the prcess. 10

15 INRA ITA Lab n a Chip Wrkshps RTD Evaluatin Netwrk Six Cuntries Prgramme TA/ATBEST UK FS 1 Facing an intensive cntrversy n field experiment f GM crps, the French Natinal Institute fr Agrnmic Research decided t set up an ITA exercise in rder t pen the decisin f experiment f GM vine t varius stakehlders and lay citizens. This ccnstructin exercise helped t define the cnditins under which these experiments wuld be acceptable. The exercise was run and evaluated by STS schlars and was the pprtunity f intense interactins with decisin makers. An SI analyst frm the TA team f NanNed, the nantechnlgy netwrk in the Netherlands, rganizes fur wrkshps with a range f stakehlders in the emerging field f Lab-n-a-chip technlgy. The wrkshps fcus n pssible near term applicatins. In preparatin f the wrkshps, participants develp during an interview their wn sci-technical scenaris. The analyst helps imprving the actrs reflectin n and anticipatin f mre desirable future technlgical paths. Fur wrkshps are planned t take place during the perid 1 st February 16 th February 2006 at the plicy lab f the University f Utrecht. Each wrkshp differs with respect t participating actr grups, and setup used in rder t draw methdlgical cnclusins after analysis. Effect measurement is perfrmed using telephne interviews in May Because f the cmpsitin and aims f the wrkshps and the rle f the strategic intelligence prviders and analyst, the wrkshps can be cnsidered Frum-type activities. The Eurpean RTD Evaluatin Netwrk, established in 1997, aims at enhancing the exchange and cperatin between natinal RTD (evaluatin) units/agencies and the relevant services f the Eurpean Cmmissin. It was initiated by DG Research t develp a Eurpean evaluatin methdlgy and a Eurpean discurse n evaluatin methds. Within the brad area f innvatin plicy, the Six Cuntries Prgramme is an example fr a nn-issue-specific Frum with emphasis n an pen-minded exchange f infrmatin, reflectin and the identificatin f new issues/assessment f new develpments. The netwrk (and its members respectively) seeks t cntribute t a better understanding f innvatin prcesses and their gvernance. At the centre f this subject are the impacts f innvatin n bth the ecnmy and the sciety. Here the main questin arises, hw innvatin plicies have t be designed t create effective utcmes f such public plicy. The FP6-NEST prject ATBEST (2004) fcused n articulating Assessment Tls fr Breakthrugh and Emerging Science and Technlgy. The ATBEST team cnsisted f prviders f strategic intelligence based at three Eurpean universties. The prject cmbined schlarly research with wrkshp-based interactin with practitiners invlved in research and strategic research management and plicy makers. The ratinale behind the wrkshp was that existing, unarticulated assessment practices can be made explicit and simultaneusly cmbined with insights frm the scilgy f science and dynamics f technlgical change literatures, s as t create rbust and multi-functinal assessment tls. While a neff ccasin, the wrkshp ffered sme useful lessns fr Fra using TA methdlgies. The UK Technlgy Fresight Prgramme is a systematic prcess fr assessing thse scientific and technlgical develpments, which culd have a strng impact n industrial cmpetitiveness, wealth creatin, and quality f life in the next 10 t 20 years. The aim f the UK Technlgy Fresight Prgramme is t recmmend 11

16 UK FS 3 Water TP pririty areas fr research and develpment funding, and fr related educatin and training. This infrmatin wuld be used by Gvernment in determining plicy, and by the Research Cuncils and thers respnsible fr the allcatin f research funds in the public and private sectrs. This is als knwn as Current Phase f Fresight. In 2000, Lrd Sainsbury, the Science Minister, annunced a review f the Fresight Prgramme aimed at building n the successes f the first tw runds, and ensuring that the prgramme was fully able t explit the challenges f the future. The key findings f the review were that the prgramme needed t refcus n science and technlgy; be mre flexible t take accunt f emerging develpments; and t fcus resurces mre clearly n where they wuld best add value. Whilst the cllabrative apprach t taking frward the wrk is cntinuing, the prgramme has mved away frm a structure f standing panels cvering brad sectrs ver a 5-year perid. In rder t allw new issues t be targeted and picked up quickly, a new fluid, rlling prgramme f prjects was established in April The Water Supply and Sanitatin Technlgy Platfrm (WSSTP) is ne f fur technlgy platfrms (TPs) within the 2004 EC Envirnmental Technlgies Actin Plan (ETAP). Its purpse is an ambitius undertaking t cnsult upn, plan fr, and then implement a sustainable future fr the whle Eurpean water sectr. The prcess engages the research cmmunity, water industry, plicymakers, the financial cmmunity and ther public, private and vluntary/ngo stakehlders. The wider purpse f the hst ETAP fr the WSSTP is t remve bstacles and t release the full ptential f envirnmental technlgies fr envirnmental prtectin, while cntributing t cmpetitiveness and ecnmic grwth. The fcus f the WSSTP is als set within the cntext f wider plicy aims f the EC fr shrt- and medium-term cmpetitiveness and ecnmic grwth. The visin f the WSSTP therefre fcuses n cmpetitiveness and innvatin in the Eurpean water sectr, in additin t planning fr safe, secure and sustainable water and sanitatin services within a sci-envirnmental perspective. The WSSTP aims t prduce: (1) a strategic visin (the Eurpean visin fr Water Supply and Sanitatin in 2030); (2) a cmmn strategic research agenda (the Eurpean Strategic Water Research Agenda), and (3) an implementatin plan. 4. The phenmenlgy f Fra - a multidimensinal categrizatin scheme The majr task f the prject was t define categries that are cncrete enugh t be able t describe any f ur Fra and t perfrm cmparisns, aggregatin and crss- Frum analysis. This chapter cntains the characterisatin f these categries. The cnceptual starting pint was a framewrk f dimensins f Frum cncepts in the early preparatin phase f this prject.4 In the curse f several prject meetings and n the 4 Majr input here was given by Andy Stirling (SPRU). 12

17 basis f cncrete, very diverse Frum cases a mre r less stable set f dimensins and sub-dimensins was agreed upn (Table 1). This table is the template that was used t describe and analyse the Fra. It is als the basis fr the web-based Thesaurus. Table 1: Dimensins including additinal levels f distinctin Dimensin First level f distinctin Secnd level f distinctin Initiating actr Plitical level Stated purpse Thematic issue Main scial science methdlgies Participants/members Duratin f Fra Plicy-maker Scial scientist Scientists [Other] Sub-reginal Natinal Eurpean/EU Internatinal Cnsensus Disseminatin Cnsultatin Cnvincing Participatin [Other] Research evaluatin Fresight TA Wider plicy appraisal Funding bdies Research cuncils Research rganizatins Intermediary rganizatins Prfessinal SI prviders Scietal service prviders Business cnsultancies Industry Citizens/Cnsumers/Users NGOs Media Plitical parties [Other] 0-2 years 2-5 years Mre than 5 years Indefinite 13

18 Dimensin First level f distinctin Secnd level f distinctin Level f persistence Resurces Output Criteria f participatin Histry and prcess f frmatin Cntext Wider scial interactin Transparency Very high High Medium Lw Very lw Budget Less than 50K K K K Expenditures Members Knwledge [Other] Publicatins Hmepage Level f frmality Highly frmalized/institutinalized Frmalized/institutinalized Infrmal/nt institutinalized Very infrmal/nt at all institutinalized Mde f participatin/new membership Membership criteria Very pen/practive Open/practive Clsed/reactive Very clsed/reactive Cmpetence Representatin Diversity Strategic influence [Other] Plicy-making cntext Institutinal cntext Relatinship with ther Frum-type activities Direct (shell 1) Indirect (shell 2) 14

19 Dimensin First level f distinctin Secnd level f distinctin Wrkshps and cnferences/persnal interactins Wrking grups/membership interactins Virtual interactins (websites) Cncrete activities Seminars Fund-raising Funding Multiple agendas evident frm the utset Multiple purpses Emergent/evlving/enacted ver time [Other] Stated purpse achieved and hw? Strategic actins/reactins Effects Knwledge/related effects Nrmative Other/hidden purpses achieved Evlutin f the Frum ver time Relatin between functin (purpse), frm (rganizatin), and issue area Lessns learned Reasns fr success/failure Gd/bad rganizatinal practices Facilitatr/Mderatr Prvider f issue expertise Rle f SI analysts Enabler/Teacher Entrepreneur General, nn-directed plicy discurse Cncrete plicy planning and develpment Gvernance functin Cnflict reslutin Plicy infrmatin n specific issues Imprvement f intelligence prvisin and applicatin In the remaining part f this chapter the varius dimensins are explained in mre detail. Initiating actrs T understand the purpse, leverage and effectiveness f a Frum, it is extremely imprtant t understand wh initiated the Frum and fr what purpse. Fra in ur fcused understanding may be initiated by plicy-makers, scial scientists (as prviders f strategic intelligence in a given science r technlgical area), scientists in a given field r any ther interested stakehlder grup (NGO caring fr certain cnsequences arising frm scientific activities etc.). 15

20 Plitical level f the Frum Fra aim at plicies and strategies that are t be designed fr a certain plitical/gegraphical area, and try t bring relevant actrs fr this area tgether. Fra may either be limited t ne certain plitical level, i.e. the lcal, reginal, natinal r internatinal level r they may, explicitly r implicitly, have the functin t build discursive bridges between plitical levels. In sme cases Fra may even be instrumental in designing new plicy spaces, cmplementing r substituting traditinal nes. It is thus indispensable t define via the agenda and the participatin f the Frum the plitical level it addresses and if and t what extent the Frum links different plitical levels. Thematic issue Each Frum has an fficial issue it is dedicated t, e.g. Frum n evaluatin practices; Frum n bigenetics; etc. The range f issues can be extremely brad, in fact, any issue relevant fr RTD plicy-making may lead t the frmatin f a Frum. Stated Purpse Fra have in general a clearly stated, explicit purpse. In principle, we distinguish five types f Frum purpses, which can, f curse, be cmbined: Cnsensus building (mediatin, mderatin, aggregatin): peple interact in a Frum in rder t exchange infrmatin, pinins and psitins with the purpse t find cnsensus n a certain issue, serving as the basis fr visins, strategies, future plicies r research activities. Disseminatin: the Frum serves t disseminate a certain plicy initiative, research results, majr scientific findings etc. In such Fra, interactin is partly asymmetrical, as it serves t let infrmatin flw in ne directin. Cnsultatin (substantive, deliberative): In Fra that functin as cnsultative bdies the initiating actr may need infrmatin, assessments, a variety f perspectives frm scientists, stakehlders etc. Mstly, this invlves the explicit aim f making a particular decisin r arriving at a particular standpint n an issue (deliberative). Alternatively, Fra may rganise the exchange f infrmatin between varius grups simply in rder t cntribute t a better verall understanding f a certain issue, nt necessarily leading t a frmal decisin (substantive). Cnvincing (nrmative): an actr initiates a Frum in rder t cnvince the participants abut the merits f a certain directin t take. This may mean that a decisin is already made and peple need t be cnvinced thrugh the Frum. It may als 16

21 mean that the Frum members have at the beginning f the Frum - agreed t wrk twards a certain gal, i.e. t imprve plicy-making thugh applying certain methds better in the future etc. Participatin (inclusin, diversity): A Frum is called fr in rder t give all ptentially relevant stakehlders a pssibility t participate in the discurse that shapes a certain science area and its related plicy space. Such Fra are ften fund in a situatin in which imprtant stakehlders are nt able t engage in the discurse in an apprpriate way. Fr example, Fra may be cmplementary t traditinal plicymaking prcess which imprtant stakehlders may be intentinally r unintentinally excluded frm. Main scial science methdlgies In the given definitin f Fra, strategic intelligence is the key fr its functining. Thus, the methd applied is crucial infrmatin in rder t learn abut the rle f strategic intelligence. The fllwing set f scial science methdlgies can be fund in Fra in the area f Science, Technlgy and related plicy: Research Evaluatin: Research Evaluatin is used in Fra that seek t cntribute t better plicy-making by infrming Frum members and ften indirectly wider stakehlders and the wider public abut the results f plicy instruments (summative) and/r by accmpanying n-ging and future plicy initiatives (frmative). While in the summative evaluatin the scial scientists analyse and then infrm the plicymaker and stakehlders, in the frmative mde the apprach is participatry and entails elements f mderatin, and in fact the whle evaluatin prcess can be rganised as a Frum. Example(s): The Eurpean RTD Evaluatin Netwrk, Austrian Evaluatin Platfrm and French Cperative Initiative are three examples f Fra where research evaluatin methdlgies are central. Fresight: Fra that explicitly deal with the future directins f research and research gvernance and funding may include elements f Fresight prvided r mderated by scial scientists, and smetimes entire Fresight prcesses may be designed as Fra (participatry fresight). The rle f strategic intelligence prviders when fresight is applied is always als a facilitating and a mderating ne. Example(s): We analyze the first and third runds f Fresight in the UK and the German FUTUR prcess. Technlgy Assessment: There are tw different kinds f TA t be separated. Firstly, Fra that deal with the cnsequences f certain (ptential r existing) knwledge and 17

22 technlgical trajectries n sciety, envirnment, ecnmy, science, plicy-making etc., mst likely include elements f TA. As with Fresight and Evaluatin, entire TA prcesses may be rganised as Fra. In a secnd frm f TA applicatin in Fra, Frum participants tgether shape future ptins f emerging S&T and create alignments. In these instances TA methdlgies are characterised by participatry methds such as mderatin and structuring techniques. Example(s): In ur sample f Fra, the ATBEST wrkshp n assessment tls fr breakthrugh and emerging S&T and the wrkshps in Utrecht in 2006 n Lab-n-a-chip ptins are examples f Frum-type wrkshps based n TA methdlgies. The case n genetically mdified vines uses interactive TA methdlgies. Methdlgical mix fr a wider plicy appraisal: Fra may integrate strategic intelligence frm scial scientists in rder t discuss in a mre cmprehensive way the future f RTD plicy-making, taking int accunt the systemic nature f RTD plicymaking. Here, we ften d nt have ne clear methdlgy that is prvided by scial scientists, but backgrund knwledge based n methdlgical capabilities. Often, the issue area f such Fra is changing, and thus als the methds that might best infrm r facilitate the Frum. This means that in such Fra the representatin f strategic intelligence needs t be brad and flexible. Example(s): Sme f the wrkshps rganized in the early 1990s by the Dutch COS addressed brader plicy issues. Participants / Members The majr questin in rder t define the scpe f interactin prvided thrugh Fra is wh is participating in the Frum. In answering this questin, the design and analysis f Fra must take int cnsideratin the simple fact that rganisatins, when part f Fra, are always represented by individual actrs. The relatinship between the participant rganisatin and its nminated individual representative (e.g. hw central is the actr within this rganisatin?) is imprtant in rder t understand the effectiveness f Fra. The effectiveness f a Frum that ne individual bserves may be strng fr the individual participating, but still remain marginal fr his r her participant rganisatin. Fr the Thesaurus small Fra may be characterised accrding t the representatin f rganisatins thrugh individuals by cmmenting n the level f hierarchy and functin these individuals represent. It is clear that fr large Fra, nly general statements can be made, including, as far as pssible, the range and type f hierarchical representatin. 18

23 Openness - participatin An imprtant characteristic f Fra is hw participatin and access is rganised. What is the level f frmality? Fra can be much frmalised in their participatin, perating as clsed shps with participatin decided upn by the initiating actr r by the whle Frum grup. Hwever, many Fra are rather pen and infrmal and allw fr reactive r pr-active participatin f interested stakehlders. Furthermre, ne has t distinguish between penness fr cntributins and actual participatin. Membership criteria The membership criteria differ, f curse, accrding t the purpse f the Fra and its initiating actr. We can differentiate the fllwing criteria fr membership, which may f curse - apply tgether and which are nt exhaustive: Cmpetence: Members are selected because they have a certain ability (methdlgical / scial), skill r knwledge that is needed fr that Frum, nrmally as perceived by the initiating actr r the Frum s bard/cre. Representatin: Fra may rganise discurse with all rganisatins that seem imprtant fr a certain issue, especially thse that are nt well represented in a mre pen discurse (see abve: participatin). Diversity: Fra may be set up t cver as much hetergeneity in the field as pssible. The purpse may be that hithert separated cmmunities and practices are brught tgether and the Frum prvides an pprtunity, assisted by strategic intelligence, fr a mutual recgnitin and understanding. Strategy: sme members f Fra need t be members nt nly fr reasns f expertise r interest, but als fr plitically strategic reasns. Organizatins may decide t participate fr strategic reasns, fr instance because ther rganizatins have decided t participate. There is als the aspect f Frum eclgy: an rganizatin might have a chice between different cmpeting Fra. Example(s): On the issue f cmpetitin, in the case f the Dutch COS (which rganized a wrkshp n Fresight in the 1990s) there have been instances f sme jstling fr space with rganizatins addressing similar issues, fr example, the case f the respnsibility fr Fresight in the Netherlands. The respnsibility had been cntested by the Advisry Cuncil fr Science and Technlgy Plicy (AWT), the Ryal Dutch Academy f the Sciences (KNAW) and COS. 19

24 Histry and prcess f frmatin T understand Fra it is necessary t lk at the actual prcess f frmatin. This cmbines the mtivatins f the initiating actrs and early participants as well as the brader histric cntext. Effects and malfunctins f Fra may very well lie in the develpment ver time, whereby the initial idea was transfrmed, but the image, identity r membership f a Frum has nt changed accrdingly. Cntext f Fra The cntextualisatin f Fra is the key in rder t understand its functining in a given plitical, scial and institutinal situatin. Fr ur purpses, we can distinguish plicy-making cntext (traditins f deliberatin, culture f plicy-making); institutinal cntext (rle f the actrs invlved in their respective institutins); and relatinship with ther Fra r discurses (this implies als ptential "cmpeting" Fra). Example(s): On the issue f the plicy-making cntext, ur sample f Fra cllects cases frm quite different natinal cntexts - the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, the UK, and France. With respect t the Netherlands we nte a characteristic f Dutch plitical culture, that is, cnsultatin between actrs frm different levels and areas when in the prcess f frmulating plicies. Because f the small size f the Netherlands there is a cre grup f actrs at Dutch universities, institutes (sme f them with industry affiliatin), and in advisry cmmittees wh knw each ther, and frequently interact in varius frms and ways n tpics f interest. Cre and wider scial interactin Fra are very ften characterised as cre interactin grups, which are persistent and have clear bundaries. Hwever, all Fra interact with their envirnment, either thrugh direct interactin in wrkshps, sub-grups and the like r in indirect ways via publicatin, ther public statements, press reprts etc. It is an imprtant element f the design and analysis f a Frum t think abut this interactin with its envirnment, abut the frm and functin, and abut the transparency r pacity f interactins. Here the questin arises f hw far the wrk f a Frum and its interactins reach. They might be limited t the cre, i.e. the members themselves and their rganisatins; but they might als reach ut t their envirnment by affecting actrs that are nt part f the netwrk at all (e.g. thrugh learning effects r publicatins). Within this prject we agreed t use a shell-mdel t clarify the range f interactins and effects. 20

25 Exhibit 2: Wider scial interactin f Fra the shell mdel shell 2: wider public, taking ntice f activities and utputs f the Frum cre: the members shell 1: nn-members, interacting directly The cre f a Frum cnsists f its regular participants, i.e. the members. In mst cases the members are individuals representing rganisatins (see abve). In shell 1 there are thse actrs wh are in direct interactin with the cre f the Frum, fr example thrugh participatin in wrkshps r hearings rganised by the Frum. Shell 2 is the wider, indirect interactin space f the wider envirnment like the general public, brader plicies, and cuntries that are nt engaged r participating in the Frum, fr example via newsletters, hmepages, etc. Organisatin and institutinalisatin Fra can be rganised in very different ways. We have prpsed a cntinuum frm very infrmal (but by definitin smehw still persistent) netwrks, with n clear rules and structures, t highly institutinalised bdies with a clear legal rganisatin (legal bdies), differentiated sub-structure and clear, explicit gvernance rules. Furthermre, Fra need t be distinguished accrding t their (envisaged) duratin, i.e. they may be ne-ff events (albeit with several fllw-up activities) r they may be institutinalised e.g. as cnsultative bdies fr an indefinite time. Example(s): In ur sample, the TA wrkshps (ATBEST; Lab-n-a-chip) represent ne-ff Fra, while the Six Cuntries Prgramme and fteval are highly institutinalized. Resurces Fra may have a dedicated budget, prvided e.g. by the initiating plitical bdies r by clearly-fixed, frmal financial cntributins f the members. The surce f the budget has f curse implicatins fr the pwer structures f Fra as well as fr agenda-setting and invitatin lists t participate in their activities. The mre centralised the budgeting, the mre likely the rganisatin and functining f the Frum is als ging t be centralised. 21

26 Cncrete activities Fra participants "interact" but this interactin f curse can have very diverse frms, such as Wrkshps and cnferences. These can include internal wrkshps fr the Frum cre and mre external, public-facing wrkshps and cnferences held fr cnsensus-building, disseminatin, deliberatin, participatin r cnsultatin depending n the purpse f the Frum. Seminars (these are ften mechanisms fr disseminatin by the Frum and fr publicity as t its activities). Fund-raising (the Frum may have an explicit r implicit purpse t wish t raise fr a particular current r future RTD r RTD-related activity within its thematic field). Funding (the Frum may have resurces at its dispsal t fund RTD r RTD-related activities). Multiple purpses hidden agendas? The attributin f the purpse f a Frum is ften very different fr different actr grups. While plicy-makers, fr example, may seek t find legitimacy fr a certain plicydecisin they are abut t take, scientists may want t raise awareness f a certain plitical r cntextual shrtcming, while scial scientists may aim at cnvincing bth parties t adjust their plicy and research accrding t sme recent research finding. Thus, the fficial purpse f the initiating actr might be cntested by ther actrs each with their wn individual aims. Furthermre, it is far frm clear hw aware participants ften are f these different expectatins. In ther wrds, next t the pen, fficial purpse there may be a hidden agenda. Thse hidden agendas may be built int the Frum frm the utset r they may becme enacted ver time, as cntexts and participatin changes. Effects The effects f Fra are f curse extremely hard t depict. Ex pst, ne can assess the effects against the stated purpses, but effects may als appear, such as mre implicit purpses and Fra can f curse als have unintended effects. Furthermre, effects can shw at different actr levels, i.e. they can be limited t the Frum members, but they can f curse als be apparent fr actrs in shell 1 (that have directly interacted with the Frum at least nce) r within shell 2 (wider public that have taken int accunt the discussins f a Frum thrugh mre indirect interactins). A preliminary typlgy f effects, based n the bservatins in the 13 cases, cntains the fllwing fur dimensins: 22