Dominik Schlossstein and Byeongwon Park
This paper seeks to compare recent third generation technology foresight studies in South Korea and mainland China. Both studies were released in 2005.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper seeks to compare recent third generation technology foresight studies in South Korea and mainland China. Both studies were released in 2005.
Design/methodology/approach
Review of the foresight reports released by the Chinese and Korean governments (not available in English), interviews with the project leaders of foresight studies.
Findings
China is relatively behind Korea in the sophistication of its technology foresight methodology. Chinese foresight is second generation (technology focus) whereas Korea's is third generation (society focus). There is no example of policy up‐take of TF results in China so far but there was one very recent example in Korea. There was no private sector participation in using Chinese foresight results; however, there was limited participation in Korea. Foresight methodology should be generally enhanced.
Practical implications
A better link between policy‐making and foresight process is needed. This requires changes at both ends. Governance issues of foresight are addressed towards the end of the paper.
Originality/value
Original, unpublished competitive paper for the ASIALICS 2006 International Conference, Shanghai, April 2006.
Details
Keywords
Kalle Artturi Piirainen, Allan Dahl Andersen and Per Dannemand Andersen
This paper aims to argue that innovation system foresight (ISF) can significantly contribute to the third mission of universities by creating an active dialogue between…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to argue that innovation system foresight (ISF) can significantly contribute to the third mission of universities by creating an active dialogue between universities, industry and society.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper’s approach is conceptual. The authors analyse the third mission and relevant literature on innovation systems and foresight to explain how and why foresight contributes to the third mission.
Findings
The authors propose that foresight contributes to the third mission of universities, particularly to the research and development and innovation dimensions through the development of joint understanding of the agendas and future needs of stakeholders. In addition, foresight enables education to be designed to address identified needs.
Research limitations/implications
The findings are both conceptual and exploratory in nature. Thus, the argument needs further examination through a broader study on foresight in the university–industry context and/or longitudinal research on the outcomes and impact of foresight in this context.
Practical implications
The findings highlight the importance of understanding the systemic nature of innovation and its role in economic development. Universities must understand their role within the larger innovation system to fulfil the potential of economic development and by extension, their third mission.
Originality/value
The paper outlines a novel approach of using ISF to promote university–industry partnerships and the growth of innovation systems. The paper also contributes to the discussion of the third mission by outlining that mission in practical terms.