1. 1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 2 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Project: From weak signals to innovations (Sept.´04-March´05) n 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) n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 3 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Revisiting foresight objectives n Priority-setting –may discount alternative pathways n Networking –two strong networks creates inertia and lock-in n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 4 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Weak signals and filters of information n 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) n Filters of Information (Ansoff, 1984)

5. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 5 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Mapping weak-signals n 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? n We focus on Innovations –focused and commensurate approach –improved comparability –action-oriented with specific actors and contexts –combined reflections of different weak signals

6. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 6 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Definition of innovation ideas n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 7 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Multiple perspectives n 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 n Three criteria –novelty –feasiblity –societal relevance n In addition, possibility for commenting –suggestions for future actions –identification of relevant actors

8. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 8 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Participants n 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% n TKK Students –~ 60 3-4 year students –in three groups –working in pairs

9. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 9 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Phases of the Project n Phase I: Participants present ideas for innovations (11-12/04) –1vaihe_esim.htm1vaihe_esim.htm n Phase II: Elaboration of ideas (11/04-1/05) –2vaihe_esim_kysely.htm2vaihe_esim_kysely.htm –2vaihe_esim_kommentit.htm2vaihe_esim_kommentit.htm n Phase III: Multi-criteria evaluation of ideas (1/05) –3vaihe_esim.htm3vaihe_esim.htm n Phase IV: Analysis of results (2/05) –portfolioanalysis (Robust Portfolio Modelling) and workshops n Parallel process was conducted with TKK students

10. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 10 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Analysis of the Ideas n In light of different criteria, identification of interesting ideas n Weak signals, sufficient mean and high deviation Deviation Mean Trend Weak signal Noise

11. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 11 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Identification of the most interesting ideas n criteria specific mean values of each idea n criteria specific deviations of each idea n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 12 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Robust Portfolio Modeling (RPM) n 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 n 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.fihttp://www.rpm.hut.fi

13. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 13 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Portfolio model for the Analysis of Ideas n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 14 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Alternative perspectives n Consensus analysis n Diverse perspectives analysis

15. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 15 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Diverse perspectives analysis: Example n With three criteria n By changing the feasible weight region we can emphasize different criteria n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 16 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Computational examples 1/3

17. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 17 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Computational examples 2/3

18. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 18 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Computational examples 3/3 n The project (idea) included in the percentaje of all non- dominated portfolios n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 19 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Example:health care and social services n Consensus analysis –max. mean of three criteria n Diverse perspectives analysis –max. mean and variance of three criteria

20. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 20 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Results and discussion n Generation of ideas –about 50 ideas from stakeholders –about 120 ideas from students n Preconditions –sufficent number of committed participants –willlingness and readiness to participate in internet-based working n 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. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 21 TED Workshop: e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making, May 19. - 22.2005, Helsinki and Conference Boat, Finland. Contact: totti.konnola@tkk.fi Conclusions n Novelty –innovation ideas as reflections of weak signals –analysis with multiple perspectives n 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 n Foster diversity within the innovation system –new ideas for innovations –new linkages between disciplines and sectors –provides bases for elaborating alternative future scenarios