Innovation Roadmap: Exploring Alternative Futures of...

File name: Innovation Roadmap Author: Dr. Totti Könnölä Status: Final Last updated: 17.9.2007 Organisation: Institute of Prospective Technology Studies

of 17

Knowledge for Growth – Industrial Research & Innovation (IRI)

Innovation Roadmap: Exploring Alternative Futures of

Industrial Renewal

CONTRIBUTED PAPER FOR THE 2007 CONFERENCE ON CORPORATE R&D (CONCORD)

New and emerging issues in corporate R&D

http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Innovation Roadmap: Exploring Alternative Futures of Industrial Renewal

of 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................3 2 From Technology Roadmaps to Innovation Roadmaps ............................................4 3 Conceptual Framework for Innovation Roadmap......................................................5 3.1 Dimensions of Systems Innovation........................................................................5 3.2 Structure of Innovation Roadmap ..........................................................................9

4 Application of Innovation Roadmap.........................................................................10 5 Discussion...............................................................................................................14 References ........................................................................................................................15


of 17

1 Introduction

Today, technology roadmapping is applied widely in the corporate world to support research and technology development (RTD) planning. Roadmaps are often constructed as timebased charts with the multiplelayers that usually include technology push and pull perspectives. The success of roadmapping has been largely based on its flexibility, being applicable in different sectors and organisational settings (Phaal et al, 2004). Furthermore, roadmaps are typically applied to predict and communicate the most probable future pathway for RTD actions. This predictive and easytounderstand approach has facilitated its use in strategic decisionmaking and in designing RTD implementation plans. However, the observations of global competition and radical changes in industrial dynamics as well as the gradual paradigm shift in the innovation policy and theory from linear to systemic models (Smits & Kuhlmann, 2004) call for the revision of roadmapping practice. Addressing the systemic models in roadmapping means the exploration of new innovations from the dynamic linkages between technological, industrial, policy and social changes rather than from one specific dimension.

To help corporate decisionmaking to understand such dynamics and to proactively prepare for alternative – even radical and disruptive – futures roadmapping methods need to be developed to better address the systemic nature of innovation and related uncertainties and possible discontinuities in the future developments. Indeed, building on its existing strength to illustrate linkages between different future dimensions, roadmapping holds a promise for improving the understanding of the dynamics of systems changes and thus help corporate strategy to better position for the future in the innovation system (Lundvall, 1992). This requires, however, a fundamental shift from predicting the most probable future to preparing for alternative futures, a shift analogous to the shift in innovation policymaking from the predictive forecasting in the 80´s to foresight practices of the 90´s.

Addressing the systemic nature of innovations in roadmapping exercises requires the inclusion of various dimensions. This, in turn, calls for another shift in roadmapping practice – from the production of predictive illustrations of the technological advances and objective fact finding to the elicitation and common formation of stakeholder opinions on alternative future pathways and desired futures. Still, roadmapping process and outcomes should be kept practical and easy to understand to ensure the value for corporate decisionmaking. Towards this end, the paper attempts to promote discussion on corporate roadmapping by conceptualising and developing a novel roadmapping approach. We develop an approach named Innovation Roadmap that refers to the structured and timebased representations about the alternative futures of technological, industrial, policy and social developments and their dynamic linkages.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the regent advances in innovation management and roadmapping. Section 3 develops the conceptual basis and the structure for innovation roadmap. Section 4 applies this approach in the purely didactic case of hydrogen solutions in the road transport. Section 5 is for discussion and conclusion.


of 17

2 From Technology Roadmaps to Innovation Roadmaps

Global competition has moved many companies towards cost management, which in severe cases has led to layoffs and even relocating facilities to countries with lower production costs. Companies search competitiveness also from technological innovations, especially, in rapidly evolving generic technology fields such as information and communication, bio and advanced materials technologies. This, however, does not come easy, as innovations tend to be ever more complex and to entail high uncertainty. In March 2007, H.A. Linstone (2007) wrote in ‘the Economist’ that separate corporate research laboratories are disappearing and/or transforming to marketdriven contract research entities. This reflects the paradigm change in the corporate RTD from basic science and technology push driven innovation processes to facilitating systemic innovations that emerge close to market (Smith, 2000; Smits, 2002). Main drivers for close to market innovation processes come from societal changes of modernisation and global competition that require faster and better RTD and business operations. The evolution of modern societies entails high level of uncertainty and complexity, which lead to more frequent and significant discontinuities in society (Giddens, 1990). At the same time there are major longterm societal challenges – such as climate change and social equity dilemma – that call for corporate actions. All this calls for proactive role for corporate innovation activities to engage in close collaboration with other stakeholders to explore alternative futures and prepare common action plans for innovations and industrial renewal.

Innovation is a systemic change process, which consists of both the elements of the invention of an idea for change and its application and diffusion in practice. Hence, innovation may be based as much on scientific and technological changes as on social and institutional changes. This creates major challenges for innovation strategies to manage the complexity and uncertainty of required systems changes (Checkland, 1981). Hence, in the dynamic industry conditions the emphasis need to be laid first on understanding rather than on reducing the complexity and uncertainty in search for functional action plans.

This challenges the conventional corporate strategy work and supporting RTD driven corporate forecasting practices and calls for foresight and roadmapping of alternative futures in collaboration with other stakeholders. Such roadmapping activities should aim at anticipating or even creating industrial renewals through innovation. Indeed, this is likely to have pertinent implications to the structure and strategy of corporate RTD function; to manage RTD process and results (IPR) close to market and together with stakeholders within many partnerships and wider networks.

Roadmapping practice faces a fundamental shift from predicting the most probable future to anticipating and preparing for alternative futures of dynamic linkages within the innovation system; a shift analogous to the shift from the predictive forecasting in the 80´s to foresight practices of the 90´s in support of innovation policymaking. In the 1980’s, publicly funded foresight activities were commonly seen as an instrument for assisting in the development of priorities for research & development (RTD) resource allocation (Irvine & Martin, 1984). Later on, stakeholder participation and networking have been regarded as increasingly important dimensions of foresight activities for ‘wiring up’ the multilayered innovation systems both in public (Martin & Johnston, 1999) and private sector (e.g.


of 17

Salmenkaita & Salo, 2004). Reports from recent foresight projects, in turn, have emphasized the importance of common visionbuilding as a step towards the synchronization of the innovation system (Cuhls, 2003). In these developments, the locus of foresight activities has tended to shift from positivist and rationalist technologyfocused approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system, including its environmental, social and economic dimensions.

These advances have already affected also corporate sector and increasing number of companies are applying foresight. While this has created significant opportunities for learning and synchronized action between different business units and business partners, it may also have caused digression and ambiguity in the practice and theory of the strategic planning, including in roadmapping activities. There is a need for conceptual development of approaches that can address the diverse dimensions of innovation.

3 Conceptual Framework for Innovation Roadmap

Today, roadmapping of technological advances is often accompanied with market perspectives. Systemic and complex nature of innovations, however, calls for the exploration and overall understanding of the dynamic linkages within innovation systems. During the last few decades, complex and uncertain futures have been explored with scenarios both in public and private sector initiatives. Here, roadmapping may provide some support by illustrating the alternative scenarios not only by positioning future developments in a timeline but moreover by providing a tool for identifying the dynamic linkages between different dimensions of the scenarios. This section develops the conceptual bases for Innovation Roadmap and elaborates the coherent and practical structure for its application.

3.1 Dimensions of Systems Innovation

The literature of innovation systems and systems innovations has largely emerged from evolutionary economics addressing technological change and its drivers and barriers (see, e.g., Dosi et al., 1988; Arthur, 1994; Nelson and Winter, 2002). Such approaches have been extended recently to cover also institutional aspects. Indeed, the connection between physical technologies and the related social systems that build and manage them is an ongoing theme in the innovation literature. From this perspective, technological systems are best understood as being composed of both physical technologies in the form of components, combined systems and infrastructure, and social technologies (institutions) – in the form of social patterns, constrains and mechanisms of behaviour such as social norms, routines, legislation, standards and economic incentive mechanisms. Indeed, Nelson and Sampat (2001) as well as North (1990) have posited that the coevolutionary features identified as creating increasing returns for physical technologies may also be applied to institutions as social technologies. Within these premises, innovation is a systemic change process of (physical) technologies and institutions, which consists of both the elements of the invention of an idea for change and its application and diffusion in practice.

Several authors have argued that systems innovations (Edqvist, 1997) i are difficult to achieve, because the prevailing system acts as a barrier to the creation of a new system


of 17

(e.g. Kemp and Soete 1992; Jacobsson and Johnson 2000; Unruh, 2000; Kline, 2001; Geels 2002; Carlsson and Jacobsson, 2004; Frenken et al., 2004; Foxon et al., to appear). The dominant design driven emergence of technoinstitutional systems ii has been elaborated by several authors (Unruh, 2000; Jacobsson and Johnson 2000) and tested empirically in connection with the emergence of numerous technologies including the automobile, electricity and the personal computer (Garud & Karnoe,2001; Raven & Verbong, 2004). Further to the dominant design driven emergence of technoinstitutional complex, Geels (2006) has noted that there are also sectors that function through the interplay of multiple technologies, which are parallel and even equally important. This can be the case, for instance with the transition of energy systems towards hydrogen production, storage, transport, distribution, conversion and enduse technologies or with the modernisation of information systems that are driven by advances in both computer hardware and software technologies and institutional changes.

The understanding of such dynamics requires a systems approach (Checkland, 1981) that considers the interplay of mutually important technologies. We agree with Geels (2006) that in such conditions transition process towards a discontinuous change may emerge through both discontinuous and continuous gradual changes in the physical and social technologies. Könnölä and Unruh (2006) define continuity type changes as incremental competence enhancing modifications that preserve existing systems and sustain the existing value networks in which technologies are rooted. Discontinuity type changes, in contrast, are competence destroying, radical changes that seek the replacement of existing components or entire systems and the creation of new value networks. iii

Holtz et al (in press) name such a system simply as a ‘regime’ and define five characteristics that regimes should at least in some extent possess, including: purpose (regimes relate to a societal function), coherence (regime elements are closely interrelated), stability (regimes are dynamically stable), nonguidance (they show emergent behaviour and autonomy (they are autonomous in the sense that system development is mostly driven by internal processes). Thus, the specific form of the regime is dynamically stable and not prescribed by external constraints but mainly shaped and maintained through the mutual adaptation and coevolution of its actors and elements. This regime is challenged both by wider socioeconomic landscape (Geels, 2006) and specific niche developments (Kemp et al., 1998).

Geels (2006) describes ‘niches’ forming the level where radical novelties emerge that deviate from the existing regime. This deviation to the regime in view of the characteristics mentioned above marks the positioning of identified factors either to the regime or to the niches. Thus, emerging novelties that are not yet widely diffused do not automatically belong to a niche. Here, the important is the chosen level off analysis and the definition of the regime to make clear which novelties deviate from the existing regime. Geels (2006) continues that niches may take the form of smallmarket niches, where selection criteria are different from the existing regime. Survival of such niches may be supported by public subsidies and act as incubators for new technologies or practices. Niches provide opportunities for learning and incubation of alternative solutions that may gradually become strong enough to challenge the existing regime or adopt and transform the regime towards new directions.

Kemp et al. (1998) as well as Geels (2006) define also third level of analysis named ’the sociotechnical landscape’, which forms an exogenous macro level environment that


of 17

influences developments in niches and regimes. The sociotechnical landscape tend to change only very slowly (for example, demographic changes, macroeconomics, cultural change).

Building on the earlier literature on technoinstitutional transitions, we consider four dimensions crucial for understanding the emergence of systems innovation. The four dimensions consist of technological, industrial, policy and social change; described in more detail below (see also Table 1 for their core concepts). i) Technological change. The identification of linkages between physical

technologies (both components and their combined systems) as well as their different phases of maturity (from emerging to dominant design technologies) provides improved understanding not only on the present state of transition process, but it also helps identify major technological bottlenecks and opportunities for alternative technological future pathways. The systemic interconnections of technologies require interoperability referring to the ability of information, applications and their systems to work together within and across technological and organizational boundaries. Here, the interoperability of technologies becomes crucial for increasing returns of economies of scale (Arthur, 1994) that support the diffusion of the technology.

ii) Industrial change. The identification of networks of technology developers, providers and appliers improves the understanding of the key drivers and barriers for change in the system. The analysis of lobbying and standardisation efforts provides relevant information on the industry dynamics. In particular, industrywide cooperation and standardisation efforts are typically directed to major interoperability problems. Hence, the exploration of existing and emerging standards and their supplementary or competitive interrelations provide further understanding of the interrelatedness of different application and technology areas and their alternative future pathways. Furthermore, for the comprehensive understanding of the transition process, it is crucial to identify also the possible absence of lobbying and standardisation efforts in the relevant areas of alternative technoinstitutional pathways. Towards further understanding of industrial change it is beneficial to explore also routines and competences that mark the conditions how organizations are able to create and exploit new technologies and other kinds of knowledge. Typically, the solutions that adapt to the existing organisational conditions are easier to implement, which lead to learning economies; skills and knowledge accumulate through learningbydoing and learningbyusing (Arthur, 1994).

iii) Policy change. Policy frameworks, understood as broad institutional and legal frameworks, can function both as barriers and drivers for change. Policy change is bounded by path dependent organizational routines and competences. Historically, in Europe the legal and policy frameworks have been developed to correct and optimize the performance of society in view of the specific criteria in each policy area. Such optimizationoriented policy efforts may reinforce lockin conditions to existing systems. On the other hand, new governance structure and evolutionary coordination policies are increasingly designed in particular in Europe to better respond to changing societal needs (Metcalfe, 1995), which are more concerned with facilitating technological and structural changes than imposing a particular result. Both policymakers and other stakeholders tend to shape institutional context through their strategic actions of creating and claiming value (Powell & DiMaggio,


of 17

1991) and can help create new social networks and agreements which can open up possibilities for novel innovations.

iv) Social change. The success of technological systems depends also on the experience and response of the endusers and those closely affected by the system. Social change may create demand for emerging technologies but also hamper the diffusion of promising technologies. When changes emerge in the system, the endusers adapt their preferences and expectations on the system through the gradual acculturation and socialisation (Unruh, 2000). When increasing number of users adapt to the system, emerges adaptive expectations as increasing adoption reduces uncertainty. Alternatively, the changes may create counter productive social behaviour that leads to inertia in the implementation of the new system functions. The examination of such societal conditions and expectations bring in the analysis not only the user perspective but also larger societal value systems.

These four dimensions provide the intertwined framework of analysis on complex techno institutional transition processes.

Table 1 Dimensions of systems innovation and related core concepts.

Dimensions of systems innovation

Core concepts

Technological change Dominant designs, emerging technologies, interoperability

Industrial change Standards, interoperability, value chains and networks, organisational hierarchies and practices

Policy change Regulations, economic instruments, governance, agreements, communication, coordination

Societal change Behaviour, routines, preferences, values

The technological system emerges through the gradual application and development of new technologies. Such a path dependent process is largely driven by industry dynamics, in which organisational resources, routines and competences define the valuenetworks and lobbying and standardisation efforts. This system is influenced by the policy change that participates in the system development through the establishment of market conditions and fostering (or hampering) both supply and demand. Policy change is in turn largely directed by social changes, which also mark the diffusion of the innovation (see, Figure 1).


of 17

Figure 1. Systems innovation builds on dynamic linkages between technological, industrial, policy and social changes.

3.2 Structure of Innovation Roadmap

In view of framing a roadmap structure for systems innovations and industrial renewal, we consider the commonly used multilayered and timeline based structure valid (Phaal et al, 2001). This enables the illustration of dynamic and interrelated relations of different dimensions of systems innovations and hence also the construction of alternative future scenarios. The identification of the right dimensions for the roadmap depends largely on the industrial conditions in which such exercises are conducted. Still, providing some archetypal general enough suggestions for the dimensions supports the inclusions of some pertinent aspects of the whole innovation system. Towards this end, we consider the identified four dimensions of systems innovation a relevant starting point. Hence, the Innovation Roadmap approach refers to a structured and timebased representation of alternative futures of technological, industrial, policy and social developments and their dynamic linkages.

Furthermore addressing explicitly the dynamics between the regime and niches, we consider it practical to divide the roadmap in two layers. Actually, the roadmapping may sometimes need to include more than one regime and/or niche, for example understanding the dynamic linkages between the sectors of energy and information technology could lead to four layered approach including for example two regimes, one based on fossilfuel combustion and another based on windows/PC and respectively two or more niches such as hydrogen based energy systems and the Unix/MAC environments. However, in practice the number of layers may be often limited only in two. The use of layers should be considered, however, only as a starting point, because during the roadmaping process the identified dynamic linkages within and between the layers may lead to the changes that require their redefinition.

The socioeconomic landscape could also be included in the frame. However, to avoid the frame grow too complex we consider that the impacts of landscape level developments can often be sufficiently addressed within the regime and niches. Addressing the four dimensions of systems innovation in both regimes and niches requires particular attention to the level of analysis also within geographical terms as changes in different dimensions are likely to be linked with international developments in different extent. Also the timeline


of 17

need to be adjusted to the specific industrial and case specific conditions; one way of defining it is given as an example in the Figure 2.

Figure 2. Hypothetical Innovation Roadmap structure for systems innovations and industrial renewal. The circles refer to key factors of change and the arrows to dynamic linkages between them.

Regime Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change Industrial change

Policy change

Social change

Niche(s) Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change Industrial change

Policy change

Social change

The roadmap structure described in Figure 2 is intended to illustrate the importance of the interplay between the regime and niche level developments. When these levels are analysed in the four dimensions of systems innovation, uncertainties, complexities and possible discontinuities are likely to be identified. In such conditions it is crucial to move from forecasting of the most probable futures and related sensitivity analysis to the formulation of even radically different alternative scenarios within the roadmapping frame that, at best, creates improved understanding on the main barriers and drivers and their interrelations in different dimensions of systems innovation. Based on such iterative analyses of alternative future scenarios it may be possible to identify common interests and required actions to achieve them. However, this does not necessarily mean the selection of the most probable future but rather the joint preparation for alternative futures.

4 Application of Innovation Roadmap

In this section, we will construct two sketches of hypothetical roadmaps for the didactic purposes to provide some preliminary ideas how Innovation Roadmap could be applied in practice. We use the developments of hydrogen based energy solutions in the road transport systems as an illustrative example of an area, where the systemic nature of innovation is evident taken that the successful application of hydrogen in road transport requires multiple technologies and vast infrastructure, industrial coordination and standardisation, policy actions and social support and learning. Furthermore, despite the required longterm transition period towards system change, there is urgent need to take present day decisions, not only in policy but also in companies involved. Hence, the


of 17

hydrogen case is likely to challenge both the anticipatory myopia of corporate decision making (Salmenkaita and Salo, 2002) as well as conventional predictive roadmapping practice. However, the intention is not here to present any factual statements on hydrogen developments but to explore how Innovation Roadmap could be utilised to obtain improved understanding of industrial dynamics.

In practice, the construction of a roadmap is likely to be a participatory and iterative process in which roadmapping is used as a communication tool to understand major drivers and barriers for change. In this case on exploring the hydrogen niche developments, the regime can be defined, as follows:

• purpose: the common societal function of the regime is to provide secure fuel solutions to road transport in a costefficient way.

• coherence and dynamic stability: the elements of the regime are closely interrelated as the transport system regime builds on the combustion of hydrocarbons, namely fossil fuels (petrol and gas) but also increasingly on biofuels; and its evolution is bounded by the technological advances, industrial competences, policy interests and social acculturation to road transport.

• nonguidance and autonomy: the regime has evolved to the stage of self perpetuation.

Niches in turn include factors that deviate from the carbon regime, which is the case of hydrogen solutions. Here, it is crucial to use this dichotomy only as a starting point for the analysis, because the very raison d’etre of Innovation Roadmap is its ability to identify and elaborate dynamic changes within and between the regime and niches. Thus, the definition for the regime holds only for the present day conditions.

The construction of Innovation Roadmap is likely to be an iterative process that may start from any part of the roadmap structure depending on the chosen approach. One practical way to get started with is to examine first the present regime and the factors, both drivers and barriers that mark today the evolution of the regime. Here, to benefit from the Innovation Roadmap approach, it is important to translate the identified factors to fit into one of the four dimensions. For example environmental challenges or resource scarcity are likely to influence for instance to industrial lobbying, innovation and environmental policies and social movements.

The iterative process of identifying the factors is likely to move between the regime and niches and lead to the identification of key drivers and barriers and the mental maps on their alternative dynamic linkages. These mental maps need to be articulated and used for the construction of alternative scenarios. At best, the roadmapping process engages related key stakeholders to generate together alternative scenarios and corresponding strategic options.

Figure 3 describes the Innovation Roadmap on European hydrogen regime. It illustrates one hypothetical route to hydrogen based road transport systems in Europe towards the year 2050. In this scenario, the dynamic linkages between regime level public support to and niche level policy actions foster hydrogen RTD to overcome major technical difficulties in the near future. In particular, the advances in the liquid H2 storage create positive spin, which is driven by industry and later on by major public sector investments and supporting policy actions. This scenario pinpoints the proactive role for the H2 industry to move


of 17

forward with H2 RTD, pilots, commercialisation, mass production, networking, standardisation and engagement of endusers and policy makers.

Figure 3 From carbon to hydrogen regime 2050: The 1 st Hypothetical roadmap for H2 introduction in the road transport system.

Regime Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change

Petrol Natural gas pipelines Internal Combustion Hybrid engines Biofuels

Petrol Natural gas and pipelines Combustion Hybrids Biofuels


H2 fuel cell transport and energy systems

Petrol Natural gas and pipelines Combustion

Industrial change Petroleum lobby Car industry lobby for H2

Hydrogen lobbies and H2 standards

H2 for industrial competitiveness, learning by doing, scale economies

Policy change Fossil fuel subsidies

Fossil fuel subsidies Emission permits

CO2 taxes Emission permits Public investments in H2 infrastructure Regulations

Hydrogen for national security and economy

Social change Public support for H2

Public support for H2

Acculturation,to H2 systems, learning by using

Acculturation to H2 systems, learning by using

Niches Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change

Fuel cells Storage Reforming Gasification Electrolysis Natural gas pipelines

H2 combustion Electric vehicles

Centralised H2 production and distribution, liquid H2 storage and transport systems

Onsite H2 production

Complete H2 fuel cell vehicle systems

Advances in gasification, electrolysis and reforming Efficient PEM fuel cells

Industrial change European H2 and fuel technology platform and technology initiative

H2 in chemical industry

Hydrogen lobby and standardization Industrial RTD

H2 for industrial competitiveness Fuel cell mass manufacturing

Policy change H2 RTD subsidies Emission permits

H2 subsidies Public procurement for H2 vehicle system pilots

Social change NGOs for H2 awareness

Learning by using in H2 niches


of 17

Figure 4 European hydrogen niches 2050: The 2 nd Hypothetical roadmap for H2 introduction in the road transport system.

Regime Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change

Petrol Natural gas pipelines Internal Combustion Hybrid engines Biofuels




Industrial change Petroleum lobby Biofuels lobby

Petroleum lobby Biofuels lobby

Policy change Fossil fuel subsidies

Fossil fuel subsidies Emission permits

CO2 taxes Emission permits Investments in and coordination of biofuels and hybrids

Hydrogen for national security and economy

Social change Public support for H2

Public support for H2

Acculturation to H2 systems, learning by using

Niches Present Short term Medium term Long term Technological change

Fuel cells Storage Reforming Gasification Electrolysis Natural gas pipelines

H2 combustion Electric vehicles

Centralised H2 production and distribution, liquid H2 storage transport systems

Onsite H2 production

H2 fuel cell special vehicle systems

H2 fuel cell special vehicle energy systems

Industrial change European H2 and fuel technology platform and technology initiative

H2 in chemical industry

Standardization Hydrogen partnerships

Policy change H2 RTD subsidies Emission permits

H2 subsidies Public procurement for H2 vehicle system pilots

Social change NGOs for H2 awareness

Learning by using in H2 niches

Figure 4, in turn, describes another hypothetical Innovation Roadmap in which hydrogen solutions in road transport remain as niche efforts despite major technological advances. Here, petrol and biofuel lobbies have strong influence on policy making and the H2 industry hesitates making sufficient investments and engaging in coordination efforts to achieve increasing returns of economies of scale and learning. For the corporate H2 RTD strategic alignments, this scenario provides reason to reconsider proactive hydrogen transport strategies and possibly reallocate the resources.


of 17

These two illustrative sketches of Innovation Roadmaps (figure 3 and 4) provide overall description of future developments pinpointing the importance of dynamic linkages between the four dimensions of change. The production of such general roadmap is likely to require also supporting detailed analyses of the dimensions. In case of hydrogen, it may be necessary to examine in detail, for instance the developments of production, storage, transport, distribution and enduse technologies. Such detailed analyses are likely to be iterative and should take into account developments in the other dimensions of change.

In view of individual company, it may be attractive to wait the results of such industrial level roadmapping activities and only after that engage in detailed corporate level roadmapping. However, in that case the company needs to trust on the outcome without knowing the process behind it and without attaining the indepth understanding of the dynamic linkages and related interests of participating stakeholders. Moreover, the company may loose the opportunity to participate in the creation of new valuenetworks and action plans and hence not be in the avantgarde position with respect to its competitors.

5 Discussion

The rationale for writing this paper is based on the paradigm change in the corporate RTD from basic science and technology push driven innovation processes to facilitating systemic innovations that emerge close to market (Smith, 2000; Smits, 2002). Systemic approach challenges corporate RTD function to build partnerships even with their competitors and to collaborate closely also with other stakeholders, governmental and/or nongovernmental. However, a roadmapping process open for different stakeholders does not necessarily mean a common strategy formation; the company may first collaborate with stakeholders to improve the understanding of future developments and later on use that understanding in the internal formation of a corporate RTD strategy. Here, we argue that roadmapping can be both a practical tool for futureoriented learning among stakeholders in view of the formation of shared understanding, common visions and new value networks as well as a tool in support of internal strategy work.

The four dimensions of change elaborated in this paper may help to identify and include relevant factors that are likely to shape the innovation environment. However, addressing the systems dynamics in roadmapping requires much more than identifying simply the relevant dimensions and factors of change. It is more about addressing the linkages between such dimensions and developing systemic understanding of the whole system dynamics that will support the company and its stakeholders to position within the innovation system (Salo et al., 2004). Therefore, the iterative roadmapping process itself is important as it offers opportunities for mutual learning. Such a process prepares company to its RTD plans, create new valuenetworks and also engage in visionbuilding for common action (Könnölä et al., 2007).

The Innovation Roadmap approach challenges predictive technology roadmaps and extends them to the exploration of the multiple perspectives of innovation in view of both regime and niche level developments and their interactions. At best, Innovation Roadmap enables the illustration of dynamic linkages within the innovation system and constructs alternative future scenarios. This linkage to scenario work may turn out to be interesting avenue for future research. However, the first priority should be to attest the Innovation


of 17

Roadmap approach in practice and elaborate it further keeping in mind the strengths of roadmapping to provide practical support for decisionmaking. The management of Innovation Roadmap is likely to differ considerably from technology roadmapping, especially in view of the management of stakeholder participation and the exploration of alternative futures instead of the most probable future. This creates complexity and uncertainty in the process and its outcomes. In such conditions, responsiveness in foresight management (Salo et al., 2004) can be a useful starting point. It builds on the flexible process design and on the receptivity towards stakeholders, which together support the management of an iterative and cyclic roadmapping process.

References

Arthur, B., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.

Carlsson, B. and Jacobsson, S., 2004. Dynamics of Innovation Systems: Policymaking in a Complex and Nondeterministic World. International Workshop on Functions of Innovation Systems, Utrecht University.

Carlsson, B., & R. Stankiewicz., 1991. On the Nature, Function, and Composition of Technological Systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2), 93118.

Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking: Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.

Cuhls, K., 2003. From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 22, Nos. 23, pp. 93111.

Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds.), 1988. Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter. London.

Edqvist, C. (ed.), 1997. Systems Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter Publishers. London.

Foxon, T. J., R. Gross, et al., in press. UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures, Energy Policy.

Frenken, K., Hekkert, M. and Godfroij, P., 2004. R&D Portfolios in Environmental Friendly Automotive Propulsion: Variety, Competition and Policy Implications, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(5): 485507.

Garud R and Karnoe P (eds.), 2001. Path Dependence and Creation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.

Frank W. Geels, F.W. 2006. Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: A multilevel analysis of the transformation of American factory production (1850–1930), Technology in Society 28 (2006) 445–476.

Geels, F. W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a casestudy, Research Policy 31(89): 12571274.


of 17

Holtz, G., Brugnach, M. and PahlWostl, P., in press. Specifying “regime” — A framework for defining and describing regimes in transition research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

Jacobsson, S. and Johnson, A., 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28(9): 625640.

Irvine, J. and Martin, B.R., 1984. Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners, Dover, London.

Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R., 1998.Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 10, No., 2, pp. 175197.

Kemp, R. and L. Soete, 1992. The Greening of TechnologicalProgress an Evolutionary Perspective. Futures, 24(5): 437457.

Kline, D., 2001. Positive Feedback, Lockin, and Environmental Policy. Policy Sciences, 34: 95–107.

Könnölä, T., Unruh, G. C., and CarrilloHermosilla, J., 2006. Prospective Voluntary Agreements for Escaping TechnoInstitutional Lockin, Ecological Economics 57, 239252.

Könnölä, T. & Unruh, G. C., 2006. Really Changing the Course: The Limitations of Environmental Management Systems for Innovation. The journal of Business Strategy and the Environment.

Linstone, H.A., 2007. The rise and fall of corporate R&D: Out of the dusty labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4); 558562.

Lundvall, B.Å. (ed.), 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, Pinter, London.

Martin, B.R. and Johnston, R., 1999. Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation System. Experiences in Britain, Austria, and New Zealand, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 60, pp. 3754.

Metcalfe JS., 1995. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1):2546.

Nelson, R. and Sampat, B., 2001. Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 44:3154.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G., 2002. Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives: 16(2), 2346.

North, D., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.


of 17

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. & Probert, D., 2004. Technology roadmapping – A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological forecasting and social change, 71; 526.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. & Probert, D., 2001. Technology roadmapping: linking technology resources to business objectives, University of Cambridge, 14/11/01.

Powell W, DiMaggio P (Eds.)., 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Raven R. and Verbong G., 2004. Ruling out Innovations Technological Regimes, Rules and Failures: The cases of heat pump power generation and biogas production in The Netherlands. Journal of Innovation: Management, Policy & Practices, 6:178198.

Rotmans, J. et al., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, Foresight: the journal of futures studies, strategic thinking and policy, 3(1): 1532.

Salmenkaita, J.P., and Salo, A., 2004. Emergent Foresight Processes: Industrial Activities in Wireless Communications, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71(9), 897– 912.

Salmenkaita, J.P. and Salo, A., 2002. Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 183200.

Salo A, Könnölä, T, Hjelt M. Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 2004;1(1):7088.

Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 4–32.

Smits, R., 2002. Innovation studies in the 21st century: Questions from a user’s perspective', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69, No. 9, pp. 861883.

Unruh, G.C., 2002. Escaping Carbon Lockin, Energy Policy, 30: 317325.

Unruh, G.C., 2000. Understanding Carbon Lockin, Energy Policy, 28: 817830.

i Also terms ‘sociotechnological transformation’ (Geels, 2002), ‘transition’ (Rotmans et al., 2001) and technoinstitutional co evolution (Unruh, 2000) have been used to describe similar kind of fundamental transformation processes of the coevolution of technological and institutional systems.

ii Also terms ‘technological paradigm’ (Dosi, 1982), ‘technological system’ (Carlson and Stanckiewicz, 1991) and ‘socio technological regime’ (Kemp et al, 1998) have been used to define such dynamically stable systems.

iii Distinguishing between the two can be complicated, however, by the fact that what is discontinuous at one level of analysis may appear continuous at a higher level of analysis (Unruh, 2002). The shift from hard disk drives to flash memory, for example, can be discontinuous for disk drive manufactures, but continuous for the larger personal computer value network in which memory is an embedded component.

Innovation Roadmap: Exploring Alternative Futures of...

Documents

Transcript of Innovation Roadmap: Exploring Alternative Futures of...