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-March05)

• 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
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
Alternative perspectives

• Consensus analysis

• Diverse perspectives analysis

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
Examplehealth care and social services

• Consensus analysis
• max. mean of three criteria

• Diverse perspectives analysis
• max. mean and variance of three criteria

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