Wars have been a part of humanity since prehistoric times, and are expected to remain an important component of future human societies. Since the beginning of the history wars have evolved in parallel with the changes in Society, Technology, Economy, Environment, Politics and Values (STEEPV). The changing circumstances unavoidably affect the characteristics of warfare through its motivations, shape and size. Armies have adapted themselves to these changing characteristics of warfare through Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMAs) by introducing new military concepts and technologies. Based on the overview of the evolution of military technologies and concepts as a response to changing conditions, the aim of the present study is to anticipate what and how future technologies and concepts will shape warfare and drive impending RMAs. To answer this question, first the RMA literature is reviewed within a broader historical context to understand the extent to which military concepts and technologies affected the RMAs. Then, a time-based technological trend analysis is conducted through the analysis of military patents to understand the impact of technological developments on military concepts. Following the historical analyses, two scenarios are developed for the future of military R&D based on ‘concept-driven’ and ‘technology-driven’ factors. The article is concluded with a discussion about the implications of future scenarios for military R&D, and likely RMAs through the changes of concepts and technologies, and possible consequences such as transformations in organizational structures of armies, new skill and capacity requirements, military education systems, and decision-making processes.
In line with the growing number and type of innovation sources and partners, companies’ institutional set up to manage the potential problems of multiple sources and partners for innovation is increasingly challenged to develop and maintain effective and efficient corporate innovation activities. The paper highlights recent developments of open innovation in companies. Findings are based on company case studies involving companies from different industries and company representatives. It shows that open innovation is actually a paradigm long practised but the main efforts are targeted to continuously developing the organization and managerial model of companies to meet the new innovation challenges.
A key element of any government's Science, Technology and Innovation policy is stable analytical infrastructure to support strategic decision making. Experience from many countries shows that substantial policy decision making requires collecting and analysing a broad range of information to develop proactive and future-oriented policies. Accordingly, infrastructure providing this information as well as evidence for policy-making must possess the capabilities for collecting, assessing, and processing information. However, information in this context is highly specific and subject related information, which is frequently embodied within expert knowledge holders. Therefore, information management in this light imposes special challenges on infrastructure.
The present study discusses some methodological approaches and practical studies to set up a network of STI Foresight network in Russia, integrated into the national Foresight and planning system. We outline the principles for goal setting, network architecture, creating a network of experts, selecting key information products, and methodological support. Russia's STI Foresight network, built on principles presented here, has been fully operational since 2011 and provides expertise on a large scale for a variety of governmental and industry organizations.
There is a common agreement that innovation is driven by the people that form the heart of any company's innovation activity. Still, people perform innovation in a special institutional environment characterized by rules and regulations that might support or impede innovation. The open innovation paradigm expects companies to engage in external relationships for innovation; however companies often neglect the actual internal openness of employees, which is an absolute must before partnering with external partners. The article finds that company innovation culture comes in five main forms: closed innovation (driven by internal capabilities); doing, using, interacting (ad hoc processes, no link to knowledge providers); outsourcing innovation capabilities; extramural innovation, no matching internal culture/procedures and proactive innovation (match of internal and external openness). The empirical analysis shows that the closed innovation behavior is by far the most widespread among Russian companies whereas proactive innovation behavior remains an exception in the overall sample.
Much in line with what has been happening in developed economies for the past few decades, policy decision makers and industry strategists in developing countries have dedicated increased attention to initiatives that foster University-Industry Collaboration (UIC). The overarching goal is to enhance the capabilities/efficiencies of innovation systems, leveraging the role of universities as generators and disseminators of valuable knowledge, highly concentrated in academia in these laggard nations. In this article we empirically assess the extent to which institutional openness in universities towards UIC linkages affect the generation of knowledge-intensive spin-offs and academic patenting activity in the context of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. We use data for 462 knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial projects related to academics receiving grants from the PIPE Program of the State of São Paulo, Brazil, as well as international patenting behavior for 126 universities and research institutes. Additionally, we have gathered data for UIC activity (2002–2010) in the affected region. The main novelty of our approach is to qualify UIC according to three different dimensions of openness, focusing on UIC levels and objects of collaboration. Results suggest that the quality of linkages (collaboration content) is a stronger predictor of both types of university entrepreneurship than the extent to which universities are connected to firms.
Purpose: This paper aims to present a categorization scheme and use it to classify Canadian Government (federal and provincial) competitive intelligence (CI) programs and to also look at the impact of these programs on sectoral and regional economic development. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the author’s 25 years of experience designing, running, and studying Canadian Government CI programs, a classification scheme to classify these programs has been developed and used. Also, by using program review information, this paper looks at evidence for program impact on regional and sectoral economic development. Findings: This paper identifies a broad range of federal and provincially sponsored CI programs aimed at helping both government officers and those outside the department make better decisions. The review identified several roles that the government can play in using CI: creator of CI (both for their own purposes and also for helping Canadian companies), CI environment skills builder (helping Canadian companies develop skills in developing their own CI) and CI partner (working jointly with Canadian companies in developing CI). While there have not been many formal program reviews of the CI programs sponsored by Canadian Government departments and agencies, anecdotal evidence (from training program participant evaluations) and a comprehensive review of a small community CI-based economic development program support positive sectoral and regional economic development results arising from these programs. Practical implications: CI programs can be used as part of a government’s regional and sectoral economic development approach. CI can be used to assist with decision-making both within and outside the government. This paper identifies several different kinds of programs that can be used to further a government’s economic development agenda. Originality/value: There are very few articles that examine how governments have helped companies to develop CI and how they have used CI, and none has looked at the impact of these on regional and sectoral economic development. This paper, based on the author’s experiences, provides a view of the Canadian programs and their impact on regional/sectoral economic development.
The paper aims to analyse the evolution of forward-looking activities in Russia vis-à-vis science, technology and innovation policy challenges and its development over the last century, with a particular focus on the period of transition to a market economy.With the development of more complex and elaborate policy instruments, demand for a better grounded long-termvision of social and economic trends has been growing both among policy makers and the S&T community. The study illustrates the emergence of technology foresight in Russia and its evolution along relevant stages of economic development, from an information source for S&T and innovation policy towards a fully-fledged anticipatory policy instrument.
Technology Foresight (TF) became an increasingly popular approach for science, technology and innovation (STI) policymakers from the mid-1990s on. Achieving prominence in Japan and Western Europe, it attracted the attention of researchers and policy analysts in many parts of the world in subsequent decades. TF is often seen as a set of tools for informing decisions about STI priorities within established innovation systems. These priorities have necessarily changed as scientific knowledge, technological opportunities, and social demands have evolved. But so too have the ways in which innovation processes operate, and understandings of the roles that STI policies can play. Accordingly TF has also been applied to inform efforts to restructure innovation systems - and, indeed, it was often seen as also providing tools to assist in such efforts. The need for such restructuring has been particularly acute in countries undergoing massive transitions. These include transitions from centrally planned to market economies, from non-industrial to newly industrialized countries, and from being imitation-oriented to becoming innovation pioneers. Correspondingly, considerable effort has been put into TF in many such countries. But much of this TF effort has been largely invisible, or at best poorly documented. TF may itself require redesign, taking different forms in various contexts, and as experience with the tools has accumulated. This might involve different patterns of emphasis of, and ways of articulating: the methods that are employed; the stakeholders engaged; the linkages with STI policymaking; and so on. Informed by the contents of this Special Issue, this essay considers the issues arising from this diffusion and evolution of practice, outlining the main capabilities required to mount successful TF exercises in different contexts.