Fostering the Diversity of Innovation Activities through e-Participation

1. Fostering the Diversity of Innovation Activities through e-Participation Totti Könnölä, & Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT Finland

2. Project: From weak signals to innovations (Sept.´04-March´05) • Part of the Finnish Foresight Forum • pilot program initiated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry • consists of three expert groups on • biotechnology: nutrigenomics • aging and demographics: health care and social services • new business from services: personal experience services • www.ennakointiforum.fi (in finnish) • Initial project objectives: • engage stakehoders to the Forum • develop a new internet-based method for the identification and multi-criteria evalution of weak signals • discuss the results in the expert groups • publish the results in Internet

3. Revisiting foresight objectives • Priority-setting • may discount alternative pathways • Networking • two strong networks creates inertia and lock-in • Vision-building • consensus may cut out relevant alternative pathways  Attention to exploration and diversity • foster diversity in perspectives, collaborative relations and ideas on innovations • Identify weak signals

4. Weak signals and filters of information • Weak signals • new emerging features in the present that can be used for foresighting the futures, often appear as far-fetched and irrational • e.g. new alternative technologies (hydrogen economy) • Filters of Information (Ansoff, 1984)

5. Mapping weak-signals • Conventional approach • wide range of different types of signals • maybe difficult interpret the signifigance • inter-dependences of signals? • importance for our organisation? • is there need for specific action, and by whom? • We focus on Innovations • focused and commensurate approach • improved comparability • action-oriented with specific actors and contexts • combined reflections of different weak signals

6. Definition of innovation ideas • We look for concrete and context-specific ideas for innovations that • are related to the chosen theme • are new for the participant or have received insufficient attention • may be related to technological discontinuities • may provide change to develop an innovation within 10-15 years • may require collaboration among different actors

7. Multiple perspectives • The relevance of ideas depend on many aspects, e.g. • has impact only on some, but is highly important for them • has impact on many, but has little importance for them • has lots of impact on many but is not necesasry feasible • Three criteria • novelty • feasiblity • societal relevance • In addition, possibility for commenting • suggestions for future actions • identification of relevant actors

8. Participants • Stakeholders of the Finnish Foresight Forum • number of invited participants was about 50 persons/theme • industry ~ 10% • government ~ 40% • research ~ 30% • commerce and NGOs ~ 10% • technology entrepeneurs and investors ~ 10% • TKK Students • ~ 60 3-4 year students • in three groups • working in pairs

9. Phases of the Project • Phase I: Participants present ideas for innovations (11-12/04) • 1vaihe_esim.htm • Phase II: Elaboration of ideas (11/04-1/05) • 2vaihe_esim_kysely.htm • 2vaihe_esim_kommentit.htm • Phase III: Multi-criteria evaluation of ideas (1/05) • 3vaihe_esim.htm • Phase IV: Analysis of results (2/05) • portfolioanalysis (Robust Portfolio Modelling) and workshops • Parallel process was conducted with TKK students

10. Mean Weak signal Trend Noise Noise Deviation Analysis of the Ideas • In light of different criteria, identification of interesting ideas • Weak signals, sufficient mean and high deviation

11. Identification of the most interesting ideas • criteria specific mean values of each idea • criteria specific deviations of each idea • Specific classes of ideas • trend: idea receives high support • maximisation of the mean value of different criteria • weak signal: idea receives somewhat support, but high deviation • maximisation of variance of different criteria, but not necessarily the mean

12. Robust Portfolio Modeling (RPM) • Choose a subset of projects, a project portfolio, from a large set of proposals (e.g. 50) subject to scarce resources • each project evaluated as a weighted sum of criterion-specific scores • portfolio valued as a sum its constituent projects’ values • Further information: • Friday 20.5. presentation of Antti Punkka, Juuso Liesiö and Ahti Salo: “Selecting forest sites for voluntary conservation with robust portfolio modeling” • http://www.rpm.hut.fi

13. Portfolio model for the Analysis of Ideas • Simplified version of the model • each criteria scores are defined, no need for intervals • focus on interesting ideas, no need for differentiation of resources • Each project evaluated as a weighted sum of criterion-specific scores • Portfolio valued as a sum its constituent projects’ values

14. Consensus analysis Diverse perspectives analysis Alternative perspectives

15. Diverse perspectives analysis: Example • With three criteria • By changing the feasible weight region we can emphasize different criteria • Specifications for the feasible weight region • variance more important than means • novelty more important than feasibility • feasibility more important than societal relevance • in addition absolut limit 1/6 of the mean value of the criteria

16. Computational examples 1/3

17. Computational examples 2/3

18. Computational examples 3/3 • The project (idea) included in the percentaje of all non-dominated portfolios • Change of selected criteria and rank orders provides alternative results for further discussion • In the workshops five alternative analysis • Maximise mean values • Maximise mean and variance • Maximise variance • Maximise novelty and feasibility • Maximise novelty and societal relevance

19. Consensus analysis max. mean of three criteria Diverse perspectives analysis max. mean and variance of three criteria Example:health care and social services

20. Results and discussion • Generation of ideas • about 50 ideas from stakeholders • about 120 ideas from students • Preconditions • sufficent number of committed participants • willlingness and readiness to participate in internet-based working • Observations • offers participation and learning opportunities • viewpoint for analysis is identifiable • consensus analysis • diverse perspectives analysis • the analysis seems to bring up interesting ideas for further elaboration

21. Conclusions • Novelty • innovation ideas as reflections of weak signals • analysis with multiple perspectives • Ideas for futher work • commitment of participants • interactive elements in the commenting (II Phase) • distribution of the workload of evaluation (III Phase) if more participants • Foster diversity within the innovation system • new ideas for innovations • new linkages between disciplines and sectors • provides bases for elaborating alternative future scenarios