@article{HegerBoman2015,
  author    = {Heger, Tobias and Boman, Magnus},
  title     = {Networked foresight-The case of EIT ICT Labs},
  series = {Technological forecasting \& social change},
  volume    = {101},
  journal   = {Technological forecasting \& social change},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0040-1625},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.002},
  pages     = {147 -- 164},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The objective of this article is to explore the value of networked foresight: foresight conducted in innovation networks for the benefit of the network and its partners with active contributions from the partners. Strategic management, specifically the dynamic capabilities approach and vast literature on corporate and strategic foresight argue that deficiencies like one-dimensionality, narrow-sightedness and myopia of closed corporate processes are remedied by incorporating external sources. A broad knowledge base promises to especially benefit foresight in multiple ways. Thus, created an analytical framework that integrates the dynamic capabilities approach with existing results on potential value contributions of foresight, enriched with existing findings in networked foresight and organizational design in the light increasing importance of inter-organizational networks. We conducted a series of interviews and a survey among foresight practitioners in a network to explore the perceived value proposition of networked foresight for the network partners and the network itself. The analysis is based on data drawn from the Err ICT Labs network of large industry corporations, small-and-medium sized companies, and academic and research institutes. Our study shows that network partners use the results primarily for sensing activities, i.e. data collection and to a lesser extend activity initiation. More sensitive and fundamental organizational aspects such as strategy and decision-making or path-dependency are less affected. Especially SMEs may benefit substantially from network approaches to foresight whereas MNEs are more confident in their existing corporate foresight processes and results. The value for the network itself is substantial and goes beyond value creation potential for companies as discussed in literature. The development of a shared vision relatable to organizational learning and reconfiguration capabilities was identified as particularly valuable for the network. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vanderDuinHegerSchlesinger2014,
  author    = {van der Duin, Patrick and Heger, Tobias and Schlesinger, Maximilian D.},
  title     = {Toward networked foresight? Exploring the use of futures research in innovation networks},
  series = {Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies},
  volume    = {59},
  journal   = {Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0016-3287},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.futures.2014.01.008},
  pages     = {62 -- 78},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Along with the rise of the now popular 'open' paradigm in innovation management, networks have become a common approach to practicing innovation. Foresight could potentially greatly benefit from resources that become available when the knowledge base increases through networks. This article seeks to investigate how innovation networks and foresight are related, to what extent networked foresight activities exist and how they are practiced. For the former the Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) is utilized as analytical framework and applied to three cases. The foresight activities are analyzed in terms of type, scope and role. The cases are a collaboration between government agencies and a research organization and two inter-organizational networks of different size. 'Networked foresight' is clearly observable in all three cases. Indeed, a networked approach to foresight seems to strengthen the various roles of foresight. However, the rooting and openness of foresight activities in the three networks varies significantly. The advantages that 'networked foresight' entails could be exploited to a much higher degree for the networks themselves, e.g., the broad resource base and the large pool of people with diverse backgrounds that are available. Furthermore, effective instruments for the reintegration of knowledge into the networks' partner organizations are needed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}