Policymakers responsible for improving the skill base needed for future economic development must assess the implications of radical technological change in the future.  The example selected here is in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of using more than one scenario of long term development when assessing such a complex issue as technology development and the demand for skills. Scenario forecasting is appropriately based on assessing plausible alternatives combined with horizon-scanning and determination of “weak signals”.  This procedure will provide early warning about how far the key elements of various scenarios  become manifest and those with maximum influence on emerging trends.

This procedural approach for forecasting future skills needs in a particular technology is to estimate short-term and medium-term prospects for its development from concrete scenarios. Nanotechnology, the paper shows, due to its relative infancy, its composition of numerous lines of knowledge development, and the many contested claims about the scope and speed of its evolution, poses particular challenges.

The paper assesses how confident we can be about skill and employment projections related to nanoindustries – and industrial applications of nanotechnology, i.e. in medicine; chemistry and the environment; energy; information and communication; heavy industry; and consumer goods. It proposes ways in which to provide more policy-relevant intelligence. Future skills forecasts, it argues, can be shaped using familiar ideas from innovation research - about technological paradigms and trajectories, and about diffusion and industry life-cycles. Requirements for skills will vary depending on how revolutionary nanotechnologies will be.  Will innovation essentially extend existing nanoengineering techniques or embody more radical visions of molecular engineering and “bottom up” nanotechnologies? Responses to these questions can be derived from expert-based alternative scenarios.

In the course of development,  firms aim to  internationalize in order to broaden their influence and enhance their opportunities. There are risks, however, in internationalization. This paper focuses on risks relating to cultural differences, which can affect a firm’s reputation when entering foreign markets. The specifics of markets can require perception of socio-cultural differences. A firm’s global image must be defined at headquarters, but the communication strategies should be defined by its local offices.  

Andreas Siegert explains the complexity of the process by which the culture of the country of origin affects worldview and behavioral patterns that can become problematical, or raise risks, in relations between representatives of the two different cultures. The general components of national culture—religion, ethical norms and traditions—evolve slowly within definite parameters. Misunderstandings between culture at headquarters and culture in the country where the branch is located can embrace legal awareness, interpretation of contracts, and perceptions of product quality.  

The paper uses for a case study Russo-German corporate relations. It reviews aspects of national character in both countries, patterns of negotiation, the perception of details of co-operation, and organizational etiquette. Russia is an important market for German firms, and therefore, consideration of cultural diversity will entail unique business-strategies. The paper uses examples of German employees, recruited only for their skills and experience, that is, neglecting their understanding of Russian norms and traditions, who can fail to communicate well.   

The paper advances the solution in the creation of an international team aimed to develop a cooperative climate that will transcend distinctive frameworks of existing cultural practices. There is abundant evidence that international teams perform well when identifying problems and seeking out innovative solutions.