Identification of Prospective Collaboration Networks in International R&D Programmes
PDF (Русский)

Keywords

multiple criteria decision analysis
project portfolio optimisation
collaborative networks
technology foresight
R&D programmes
robust portfolio modelling (RPM)
networking

How to Cite

BrummerV., LiesioJ., NissinenJ., & SaloA. (2011). Identification of Prospective Collaboration Networks in International R&D Programmes. Foresight and STI Governance, 5(1), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2011.1.56.66

Abstract

International partnership plays an increasingly important role in the performance of innovation systems. Despite the consensus on the benefits of international cooperation and the adoption of a number of influential policies, systemic ways of joint identification of the thematic priorities and collaborative networks and activities in R&D programmes are underdeveloped. At the global level, the formation of policy is complicated by the need to account for numerous horizontal and vertical linkages, both within as well as between innovation systems. As the number of prospective stakeholder groups grows, the diversity of the objectives and strategies that they pursue grows too, implying that it becomes increasingly difficult to synchronize them.

Aiming to close the gap authors developed a methodology for robust portfolio modeling of networks (RPM-Networking) that allows identifying the thematic priorities and shaping long-term collaborative networks within national and international programmes. The basic criterion for evaluating potential networks is their viability. The proposed approach is based on portfolio analysis – robust portfolio modeling (RPM) - which allows taking into account resource-related and other constraints when identifying thematic priorities for R&D and shaping related networks. Building collaborative networks should be consistent with the definition of thematic priorities. RPM-Networking allows synthesizing these processes.

Methodologically RPM-Networking presumes an integral estimate of thematic priorities and collaborative networks thus facilitating the identification of thematic priorities and the establishment of new networks basing on multi-criteria analysis of research topics to evaluate the degree of interest of potential participants.

The paper considers the capacities of the method as exemplified by the processing of the data set derived from joint consultations under the project WoodWisdom-Net. It covers 18 partners from eight countries and seeks to advance networking and integration of national programmes in wood material science and engineering. Experience of applying the methodology has proved its effectiveness and viability.

The authors conclude that the creation of new collaborative research networks should be central to the establishment of international programs where networking is hindered by a wide variety of cultural characteristics and organizational practices. In addition applying a systemic methodology allows achieving other desired parameters such as enhanced governance, determining the exact amount of funding for projects, thus reducing the risks, and identifying the target group of scientists which are interested in related topics  in terms of complementarities and interdisciplinary approaches. Further it is possible to optimally implement the results of Foresight in practice. In particular it appears that the successful mobilization of the scientific community, submission of a quite wide range of topics for evaluation and their high scores are critical prerequisites for successful application of RPM-Networking.

 

 

https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2011.1.56.66
PDF (Русский)

References

Arranz N., Fernández de Arroyabe J.C. (2006) Joint R&D projects: experiences in the context of European technology policy // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 73. № 7. Р. 860-885.

Barré R. (2002) Synthesis of Technology Foresight / Tübke A.A., Ducatel K., Gavigan J., Moncada P. (eds.). Strategic Policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives. Technical Report EUR-20137-EN. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS). Seville.

Brummer V., Könnölä T., Salo A. (2008) Foresight within ERA-NETs: experiences from the preparation of an international research program // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 75. № 4. P. 483-495.

Camarinha-Matos L.M., Afsarmanesh H. (2003) Elements of a base VE infrastructure // Computers in Industry. Vol. 51. P. 139-163.

Camarinha-Matos L.M., Afsarmanesh H. (2005) Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline // Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. Vol. 16. № 4-5. P. 439-452.

Camarinha-Matos L.M., Afsarmanesh H. (2007) Results assessment and impact creation in collaborative research - an example from the ECOLEAD project // Technovation. Vol. 27. № 1-2. P. 65-77.

Chataway J., Webster A., Wield D. (1999) Introduction: technologies in transition // Technovation. Vol. 19. № 6-7. Р. 339-344.

Clark J., Guy K. (1998) Innovation and competitiveness: a review // Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Vol. 10. № 3. P. 363-395.

European Commission (2003) Innovation Policy: Updating the Union's Approach in the Context of the Lisbon Strategy. European Commission COM112 Final. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/innovation/communication/doc/innovation_comm_en.pdf.

Fritsch M., Lucas R. (1999) Who cooperates on R&D? // Research Policy. Vol. 30. Р. 297-312.

Hellström T., Eckerstein J., Helm A. (2001) R&D management through network mapping: using the internet to identify strategic network actors in cooperative research networks // R&D Management. Vol. 31. № 3. P. 257-263.

Henriksen A.D., Traynor A.J. (1999) A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool // IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Vol. 46. № 2. P. 158-170.

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

Jewell T. (2003) International foresight's contribution to globalization // Foresight - The Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy. Vol. 5. № 2. P. 46-53.

Kauffman A., Tödtling F. (2001) Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems // Research Policy. Vol. 30. P. 791-804.

Keiser R., Prange H. (2004) The reconfiguration of national innovation systems - the example of German biotechnology // Research Policy. Vol. 33. P. 395-408.

Klaassen G., Miketa A., Larsen K., Sundqvist T. (2005) The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom // Ecological Economics. Vol. 54. P. 227-240.

Koschatzky K., Sternberg R. (2000) R&D cooperation in innovation systems - some lessons from the European regional innovation survey // European Planning Studies. Vol. 8. № 4. P. 487-501.

Kuhlmann S., Edler J. (2003) Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe: investigating future governance // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 70. P. 619-637.

Könnölä T., Unruh G.C., Carrillo-Hermosilla J. (2006) Prospective voluntary agreements for escaping techno-institutional lock-in // Ecological Economics. Vol. 57. № 2. P. 239-252.

Lau C.W.L., Wong E.T.T. (2001) Partner selection and information infrastructure of a virtual enterprise network // International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Vol. 14. № 2. P. 186-193.

Liang S-K., Yuan B., Chow L.R. (1999) A decision model linkage between technology forecasting, technology dominance and technology strategy // International Journal of Technology Management. Vol. 18. № 1-2. P. 46-55.

Liesiö J., Mild P., Salo A. (2007) Preference programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and project selection // European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 181. № 3. P. 1488-1505.

Liesiö J., Mild P., Salo A. (2008) Robust Portfolio Modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies // European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 191. № 3. P. 679-695.

Lindstedt M., Liesiö J., Salo A. (2008) Participatory development of a strategic product portfolio in a telecommunication company // International Journal of Technology Management. Vol. 42. № 3. P. 250-266.

Love J.H., Roper S. (2001) Location and network effects on innovation success: evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants // Research Policy. Vol. 30. P. 643-661.

Oral M., Kettani O., Lang P. (1991) A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects // Management Science. Vol. 37. № 7. Р. 871-885.

Pochet P. (2005) The open method of co-ordination and the construction of social Europe: a historical perspective / Zeitlin J., Pochet P. (eds.). The Open Method of Coordination in Action. The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies. Brussels: PIE-Peter Lang.

Poh K.L., Ang B.W., Bai F. (2001) A comparative analysis of R&D project evaluation methods // R&D Management. Vol. 31. № 1. P. 63-75.

Prange H. (2003) Technology and innovation policiers in the European system of multi-level governance // Techikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis. Vol. 12. № 2. P. 11-20.

Saaty T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Salmenkaita J.-P., Salo A. (2002) Rationales for government intervention in the commercialisation of new technologies // Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Vol. 14. № 2. P. 183-200.

Salo A., Gustafsson T., Ramanathan R. (2003) Multicriteria methods for technology foresight // Journal of Forecasting. Vol. 22. № 2-3. P. 235-255.

Salo A., Könnölä T., Hjelt M. (2004) Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections from the finnish food and drink industry // International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. Vol. 1. № 1. Р. 70-88.

Salo A., Liesiö J. (2006) A case study in participatory priority-setting for a Scandinavian research program // International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making. Vol. 5. № 1. P. 65-88.

Salo A., Punkka A. (2005) Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies // European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 163. № 2. P. 338-356.

Salo A., Salmenkaita J.-P. (2002) Embedded foresight in RTD programmes // International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 167-193.

Stewart T.J. (1991) A multi-criteria decision support system for R&D project selection // Journal of the Operational Research Society. Vol. 42. № 1. P. 17-26.

Tian Q., Ma J., Liang J., Kwok R.C.W., Liu O. (2005) An organisational decision support system for effective R&D project selection // Decision Support Systems. Vol. 39. № 3. P. 403-413.

Webster A. (1999) Technologies in transition, policies in transition: foresight in the risk society // Technovation. Vol. 19. № 6. P. 413-421.

Бруммер В., Коннола Т., Сало А. (2010a) Многообразие в Форсайт-исследованиях: практика отбора инновационных идей // Форсайт. Т. 4. № 4. С. 56-68.

Бруммер В., Коннола Т., Сало А. (2010б) Разработка национальных приоритетов для технологической платформы лесного сектора // Форсайт. Т. 4. № 2. С. 44-56.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.