Research Change in Transition

Augusta Maria Paci, Cecilia Bartolucci, Cecilia Lalle and Francesco Tampieri

National Research Council, Piazzale Aldo Moro 7, Rome, Italy

Keywords: Intellectual Capital, Accumulation of Knowledge, Participatory Foresight, Research and Innovation.

Abstract: This paper presents the process of managing the knowledge of the intellectual capital of research

organizations. This KMIS is dealt by an integrative perspective for a dynamic framework. The focus is

given to three decisive components-communication, navigation and multicontact relationship that represent

the current ‘open nature’ of knowledge. This perspective increases, through KM, the role of intellectual

capital keeping value in a transition towards research change. Foresight thinking represents an enabler to

drive this change in public research organization and Science & Technology Foresight Project and Horizon

Scanning, as practice perspectives, are reported in this paper. They have an inclusive and engaging nature

based on a participatory process with a bottom-up approach and represent concrete actions enabling the

research intellectual capital to move fast toward a research change transition considering cross-cutting

aspects for increasing impacts related to technological developments. The monitor of constraints and

barriers helps to identify short term issues to be assessed and overcome for success of the undertaking.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge capital provides the intellectual basis in

science and technology and will impact on industrial

change, growth and jobs.

However, this knowledge is not yet routinely and

directly captured to contribute creating intellectual

capital. The value in encouraging and supporting

individuals interested in similar areas of research

and in work processes can be beneficial both to

individuals and to research organizations. The

accumulation of knowledge makes researchers a

large and global community. Highly specialized

learned individuals in competitive fields represent

the intellectual capital in the knowledge economy.

The need is to relate knowledge, social

relationships and creativity to develop a “social

capital” to enable a transition empowering scientific

organizations and people to become reserves and

sources for capital. Due to the economic situation

and financial contexts, diverging trends in public

investments in research and innovation have been

continuously addressed (ERIAB, 2014).

It is hence urgent to develop conditions for

stimulating researchers to openly discuss major

problems arising in societal and planetary contexts,

thus exchanging insights and self-preparing to a

research approach, which would deliver responsible

and knowledge-based solutions (McInerney et al.,

2007).

Considering this need, the so-called

accumulation of knowledge represents a reserve, a

starting advantage for many countries, but a shift to

become a source is required in developing the

research intellectual resources to create societal

prosperity in the web age.

In this context, the current issue is to build the

relationship between the development of knowledge

capability inside the IC, KMIS and innovation.

Knowledge capability is defined by (Alavi and

Leidner 2001) as the interior capability of

researchers having the potential for influencing

future action. The above relationship is carried

forward through processes and social activities

within research organization.

To implement this relationship, the mix of two

purposes is presented: a framework proposing to

integrate the emerging components in daily work of

IC in research organizations and a KMIS practice

perspective introducing social activities such as

foresight and horizon scanning within the above

framework for a change in research organization.

This mix enables the transition of IC within

research organizations beyond the regulated linear

forms for knowledge production.

The proposed dynamic framework allows

research process to shift from the current linear

Maria Paci A., Bartolucci C., Lalle C. and Tampieri F..

Research Change in Transition.

DOI: 10.5220/0005058300440053

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 44-53

ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

chain -built on funded research projects with

tangible results- to include the components of the

integrative perspective. In this framework, KMIS

processes are developed.

This integrative perspective focuses on three

decisive components -Communication, Navigation

and Multicontact relationship- that represent the

current practices of researchers.

It draws closer attention to the ‘open nature’ of

knowledge and increases the capability to develop

interdisciplinary R&D. The perspective is freely

interlinked with social practices, with community of

interest or practice around challenging themes that

require a trustful learning development process.

Therefore foresight that includes also Horizon

Scanning (HS) is considered a practice perspective

to drive the intellectual capital change supporting

research transition, as it requires discussions and

debates in order to shape the future of societal

progress empowered by R&D.

In addition, foresight actions concern long-term

thinking and therefore do not interfere with the

management of organizations and individuals.

Both foresight and HS provide a practice perspective

on top of the proposed framework, as reported in the

paper. They are motivated by the need to develop, at

organization level, new strategic interdisciplinary

directions that require a collective knowledge and a

critical mass (Andreta et al., 2013). At individual

level, Horizon Scanning activities at small scale are

dedicated to create social situations for high level

researchers of the research organization to debate,

focus advances and prioritize future areas of key

technologies through which individual expression

may occur.

2 STATE OF THE ART

The overall on-going shift in the relationship

between science and society, according to (Beck

1992) main message, rises problems and

implications for any industrialised society and

requires to find new pathways for science and

technology development in this new context.

According to literature in intellectual capital, the

definition of knowledge meeting the research

intellectual resources is to focus knowledge as a the

interior capability of researchers having the potential

for influencing future action (Alavi and Leidner

2001; Carlsson et al. 1996).

In KM literature, (Swan 2007) pointed out the issues

in the relationship between KM and innovation

introducing the perspective of production, process

and practice. These reflections studies on rethinking

KM as a plurality of techniques, methods and

epistemologies are collected in (McInerney et al.,

2007).

Recent studies, still in draft publications,

describe difficult times for science and technological

organizations and prospect a clear need for rapid

transformation and research change of their

intellectual capital to keep together public costs,

value and the quality of life achieved in years of

scientific development (ERIAB, 2014). Previously,

the transformation in the perspective of Science 2.0

was proposed by (Burgelman et al., 2010). However,

it is not yet known how to support this transition and

its related processes and research runners help

themselves engaging in foresight initiatives.

Foresight is a well-known area that has given

support to various types of intervention for

transformation purposes as reported below.

(Georghiou et al., 2008) demonstrate how, since

the last decade of the last century, foresight has been

strongly linked to public policies. During that period

five generations of technology foresight were

developed to respond to both stakeholders and multi-

level policy, involving national, regional and local

frameworks (Taylor, 2004). Debating foresight with

implications for policy and decision-making at

general level is considered a relevant activity by the

European Commission, enabling experts to think and

share technological perspectives and suggesting

implications to complement potential development

for economic growth (EC and JRC, 2008). Various

contributions find a relationship between foresight

and the increase of societal participation extending

the concept of stakeholders beyond private or

institutional organisations to communities. The role

of these communities is to develop Future-Oriented

Technology Analysis (FTA) reflecting their interests

in new emerging contexts and to make use of shared

methodologies.

Recent literature in foresight debates on the

integration of quantitative and qualitative

approaches. This is addressed in detail by

(Haegeman et al., 2013) who propose a taxonomy

for methodological combinations across current FTA

practices. Of particular interest in this paper is the

analysis of common ‘misconceptions’ such as

‘subjectivity’ which becomes a barrier especially in

qualitative processes involving scientists.

Furthermore, the reported Epistemology-Skills-

Trust cycle indicates the need to adopt mechanisms

for the capturing of intellectual scientific knowledge.

The authors point out weaknesses and introduce

ways to reduce the distortion, for instance through

ResearchChangeinTransition

the ‘legitimacy of the person making the

judgement’. With regard to participation from

institutional stakeholders, foresight has been

considered an instrument for political participation

on medium-long-term planning perspectives,

capable of influencing priority-setting and political

agendas (Gieseke, 2012).

In the foresight studies literature, the maturation

of foresight through growth processes is a result of

contributions given to overall S&T development,

through technological forecasting, horizon scanning

and scientific/technological prospective studies

including broader social and economic perspectives.

Recently, due to the economic transformation,

foresights concentrate on innovation and on drivers

of change STEEP (Society, Technology, Economy,

Environment, Policy) and on decisive, strategic

factors analyses. Multiple stakeholder classes are

required for this foresight and this stresses the

‘collective ability to shape the future’. In particular,

it is acknowledged that the use and impact of

forward-looking technology analysis for policy and

decision making can be successfully led by

institutional governmental organizations taking into

considerations dominant criteria for success (Calof

and Smith, 2008). Interviewed practitioners from

different countries include social and economic

dimensions in technological development and

innovation systems. Among the features of foresight

success, Calof and Smith identify the existence of a

national-local academic receptor and training

capacity during the start-up phase.

Foresight is also considered supporting strategic

intelligence for policy decision-making (De Smedt,

2008; Montalvo et al., 2006). It was noted that to

respond to innovation policies, foresight needs to

meet the demand of future-looking scenarios

regarding the overall changes of cultural and societal

aspects (Cagnin and Keenan, 2008). In order to

enable decision-makers to better understand and

cope with the complexities and uncertainties of the

continuously changing patterns of innovation,

foresight practices increased mobilisation and

coordination of different stakeholders as well as

personalised delivery of insights and analysis to key

players at group level. Ends, in literature foresight is

shown as a tool, stimulating a ‘change of direction’.

More recently, (Van der Gießen and Marinelli

2012) reported the multiple functions and the role of

European and national policy workshops. Yet, in

past literature, (Eriksson and Weber 2006) suggested

that adaptive foresight were developed at the

crossroads of foresight and adaptive strategic

planning. Innovation is seen as increasingly

complex, interdependent and uncertain and therefore

in need of broad and multi-disciplinary exploration

and participation. establishing a close relationship

between foresight, decision-making, innovation and

new technologies. Particularly they highlight the

capitalisation of the accumulation of knowledge

with the aim of delivering insights on the maturity of

knowledge and planning for knowledge options in a

later stage.

A relevant aspect in the literature for a transition

to a research change regards the evolution of initial

foresight panels involving only a few experts (De

Smedt, 2008). These have been superseded by large

extended and interacting communities, formed by

stakeholders and key players. They actively

participate and progressively align their expectations

to shape the future (EFP, 2012; Eriksson and Weber,

2006; Futman Project, 2003).

All these elements mark important steps in the

evolution of design of complex economic and

industrial scenarios. This continuous process of

collecting stakeholders’ knowledge through different

contexts is called ‘integrative planning’. It defines

the combination and mapping of available insights

for future developments emerging from different

groups of stakeholders and experts and mass

interviews conveyed into ‘packages of information’

that are published as policy briefs for decision-

makers, summarising possible and alternative

options and solutions.

In the same area, to bridge the gap between

research and industrial demand, starting from the

futuring of next generation industrial technologies in

order to assist the industrial transformation, a full

cycle-oriented methodology -rolling programme-

was proposed to relate results from future-oriented

activities such as Foresight, Roadmapping,

Implementation and Monitoring (FRIM) (Paci and

Chiacchio, 2008). This methodology can enable

participants to assess and prioritize those enabling

technologies for implementation of research and

development projects within the EU 7FP as

proposed by (Paci et al., 2013). In the last five years,

foresight for research and innovation represents a

relevant social process. It was intensified and

supported through funded projects (covering

different objectives such as Global Europe,

Pashmina, NEEDS etc) by the DGs of the European

Commission and foresight studies carried on by the

EU Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC, 2013)

in order to collectively shape a strategic frame for

the EU policy strategy that envisages both industrial

as well as social benefits.

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

In this stimulating thinking, the sketch contested

science delivered by the EU foresight project VERA

visions, presents a pessimistic narrative that gives

the deep motivation why research change is needed

(VERA, 2013).

(Di Bello and Andreta 2013) provide some initial

guidance for industrial competitiveness in

Horizon2020 towards an integrated planning

framework for key enabling technologies. These

enablers drive innovation and growth in the

economy and society in a global Europe (EU, 2012)

in the frame of the Grand Challenges as depicted by

the EU Horizon 2020 programme.

Considering digital initiatives, recent

developments and the toolkit available in looking at

digital futures have been described by (Accordino

2013) with regard to the EU Commission web

platform Futurium in order to strengthen and support

the social networking aspect together with the global

dimension.

3 INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE

In the business perspective, intellectual capital is

formed by four separated elements covering

different roles: innovation capital, human capital,

structural capital and customer capital.

In the research perspective, the intellectual

capital covers multiple roles with the four elements

establishing a flexible relation with the related

research organization structure. It is interesting to

observe the distribution of these different roles

during the research process, currently oriented to

funded project implementation in a linear chain,

within three main steps:

 Innovation capital in Accumulation of scientific

and technological knowledge in terms of

papers, patents and knowledge stratification.

 Human capital and structural capital are

together in Segmentation which is tied in the

organization structure, based on the research

infrastructure and tied in the net of scientific

core competencies.

 Customer capital in Multiplication that refers to

public-private collaboration models and to

funded projects efforts.

Therefore, research performance is oriented to

achieve project results limiting adaptive and flexible

behaviours and implies reflections on how to feed,

manage and increase the ‘open nature’ of

knowledge. A more comprehensive and dynamic

framework for research process will be useful to

understand how to move forward and which

orientations are to be taken to stimulate intellectual

capital to interdisciplinary thinking. This framework

introduces an integrative perspective to combine the

current process with three decisive components for

research change affecting today and in the future

how knowledge could be shared and accessed:

Communication, Navigation and Multicontact

relationship (Figure 1). KMIS is embedded in this

integrative perspective for a dynamic framework.

Figure 1: Integrative perspective for a dynamic framework

of research intellectual capital.

This perspective integrates the four elements of

the intellectual capital dragging and placing them in

three decisive components to empower the research

process with dynamic behaviours (Figure 2).

Communication has the role of enhancing trusted

confidence, adding value to Accumulation built on

publications of papers and patents and knowledge

stratification, dragging the innovation capital to

stimulate a more proactive behavior.

Navigation with multiple channeling has the role

to overcome the Segmentation of organizational

structure and competence specializations, dragging

human and structural capital to promote

interdisciplinary thinking.

Figure 2: Decisive components for research change.

ResearchChangeinTransition

Multicontact relationship with easiness sociality

has the role to increase the impact of Multiplication,

dragging the customer capital to increase to promote

the exploitation of collaboration models and projects

results.

The integrative perspective for research change

is driven by societal needs and foresight thinking is

the essential enabler for the transformation of

research organizations. This perspective facilitates

more adaptive and flexible approaches to make

research valuable for society.

4 PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES

Practice perspectives for knowledge and innovation

are mentioned in the literature as emerging areas to

encourage learning and innovation within

communities of practices (Schatzi, 2001; Swan,

2007). Foresight thinking represents an enabler to

drive this change in public research organization.

Foresight and Horizon scanning can be considered

practice perspectives that add insights to the

understanding of the fast dynamics of knowledge,

dedicating closer attention to the social activity of

research communities. Foresight and horizon

scanning support the understanding of technological

trends, of complex issues, of strengths and

weaknesses as well as expectation from society and

companies that will drive the societal progress in

next 20-30 years. The practice perspectives proposed

are related to two initiatives carried on with research

groups.

They represent practices built on top of the

integrative perspective in order to improve the

intellectual capital of research communities and to

activate a social activity characterized by the

research environment.

The practices respond to the need of establishing

forward looking activities to address future

emerging S&T paradigms to anticipate and increase

impacts. They aim to develop the imaginative

capability of researchers to envisage

interdisciplinary solutions, building and

implementing a societal driven vision contributing to

a responsible and sustainable socio-economic

development.

The objective of these practices is to accelerate

the shift from project team or individual practice of

accumulation of knowledge to collective practices

that involve researchers to analyse strategic choices,

exploit networked collaboration and build new solid

and durable contacts across high-tech specialties

within the organization and at global level. This in

particular targets to activate dynamic processes to

form a critical mass within research organizations

that want to act as a key receptor in the knowledge

economy.

The first practice presents the Science and

Technology Foresight Project (STFP) launched in

2013 by the National Research Council of Italy

(CNR) and the Trieste Area Science Park

Consortium (AREA), with the support of the

Ministry of Education, University and Research

(MIUR) as an open bottom-up participatory process.

The scope is to build a community of researchers

and a networked collective knowledge to overcome

disciplinary boundaries.

The practice perspective describes the approach

to new interdisciplinary S&T areas for research

development of next generation technologies in the

medium to long term tackling societal problems

related to health, food, environment and energy

challenges.

The network dimension - in particular - is

considered a fundamental enabler of interaction and

interconnection ensuring inclusion of learned and

sound popular opinions. Benefits are for individual

participants, for the research communities, and for

the research organizations that covers the role of

national-local receptor - as observed by (Calof and

Smith 2008). The first practice perspective on

Foresight focuses the Interdisciplinary Thematic

Groups.

4.1 Foresight S&T Thematic Groups

The CNR foresight Thematic Groups (TGs) are the

core engine of the project aiming to provide new

insights for the collective understanding exploiting

the collective intelligence of researchers through a

participatory process and a bottom-up approach.

Focusing on urgent problems related to the

Grand Challenges -food, health, environment and

energy- each Thematic Group highlights a specific

S&T topic: Nano for sustainable food, Personalized

medicine, Intelligent traceability for environment,

Smart storage for future energy.

Referring to the topic, each TG carries on

specific activities and searches contributions from

high level international experts to consolidate the

related background document with references to

available sources.

Each TG holds a foundation seminar regarding

the selected topic to validate the background

document, inviting previously interviewed

participants who also actively contributed to develop

the topic. The seminar purpose is to improve and to

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

deepen the knowledge confrontation, to identify

gaps in knowledge, to point out obstacles, to identify

needs for more and better education as well as for

more funding, and to outline market potential and

social acceptability for activities and products. The

output of the seminar is a draft of a roadmap

describing the most promising areas for investment

in research dealing with multiple Key Enabling

Technologies (KETs) areas as described in the Pillar

LEIT of Horizon2020 Programme and in the final

report of the High Level Group on KETs (2011).

The first foundation seminar in December 2013

covered the topic Nano for Sustainable Food.

‘Sustainability’ has been identified as the main

challenge and ‘Nanotechnology’ the key enabling

technology.

Health TG, held in May 2014 the seminar on

personalized medicine covering the theranostic area

for technologies development.

EnvironmentTG will debate next November the

topic ‘Intelligent traceability for Environment’

investigating promising areas for R&D.

In addition, among the TGs, specific S&T areas

of common interest are under consideration to focus

on future research aspects that require a convergence

of perspective and a synergy across knowledge

stratification. An example of this TGs’ collaboration

was sought in the occasion of the last International

workshop “Eco-sustainable Food Packaging Based

on Polymer Nanomaterials” (Bartolucci et al., 2014).

In particular in food packaging, nanomaterials

(NMs) play already an important role (Table 1).

Benefits in the future would result from further

development of intelligent and active packaging and

a better synergism with other converging or

emerging technologies. This future research

development would be advisable in order to reduce

the current environmental impact. Furthermore in

medium and long term, packaging will be integral

part of the food chain and research on this need is to

be encouraged.

Table 1: Challenges that can be addressed through the

application of nanomaterials in the food sector.

Among the fundamental understanding, is the

researchers’ awareness that the introduction of NMs,

especially in the food sector, is accompanied by

reluctance since it is difficult to evaluate their hazard

on the environment and on human health. Building

on this and investigating the advances, the security

regarding Health, Environmental and Safety,

encourages researchers to support the development

of discussion on core cross-cutting aspects such as

appropriate analytical methods for the

characterization and quantification of nanomaterials

and nanoparticles within a life cycle framework,

necessary for toxicological evaluations.

Collective internal discussions and with

international experts enable to debate advances in

this research areas, the development of intelligent

hazard strategies for risk assessment and

subsequently the issue of risk reduction. Social

acceptance is key to the adoption of a new

technology in market driven strategies. In this

context, new forms of packaging, including

packaging with interactive labelling, could provide a

good starting point for the introduction of NMs. In

the transformation of research, a process of change

requires a community of researchers sharing an

overall approach with better information,

transparency and willingness to communicate with

stakeholders and the public - which is a requirement

to be continuously addressed.

4.2 Web Platform

Social connectivity plays a key role in the

involvement of scientists and experts from

academia, government and the private sector. For a

convergence among IC, KMIS and innovation, web

systems are geared toward enabling users to share

meaning in discussions and to capture some of their

knowledge to form a collective knowledge crossing

boundaries (Alavi and Leidner, 2001)

The CNR foresight project has developed a

webplatform (http://www.foresight.cnr.it) as the

enabler for this collective knowledge. The

webplatform represents the operational

infrastructure of the STFP net, enhances

transdisciplinary knowledge sharing and ensures

connectivity and real time exchange.

The Foresight webplatform characterizes the

STFP innovative approach to foresight. It is

composed by sections such as topics discussion,

contributions, document repository, management

and administration. This tool is subject to changes to

respond to the needs of the thematic groups. The aim

of the tool is to ensure a networking environment

designed for researchers engaged in the foresight

process.

ResearchChangeinTransition

5 HORIZON SCANNING

The second practice perspective describes the

experience based on Horizon Scanning (HS) - which

is an activity distinct but often related to foresight

drawing a closing attention to the Navigation

component in the integrative perspective.

The described practice aims to help researchers -

with excellent knowledge background and apical

research positions- to work together looking to

future emerging directions in a broader view.

Researchers are intensively involved in the daily

management of specialized groups to achieve

specific scientific artefacts and have a lot of

interactions at any level.

The scope is to overcome the segmentation

currently in place in organizational structure due to

competence specializations and to manage the

fragmentation related to Navigation.

Therefore, the HS practice represents a practice

that is built on the “materiality” of the research work

but represents also an investment into a social

activity for identifying new and emerging trends and

issues and to focus on developments to deal better

with an uncertain and complex future.This practice

has important implications for KMIS for research

and innovation as it reveals the propensity to

transform knowledge and working habits to

overcome the silo-thinking.

The experience reports about the DMAIC-HS

method developed (Paci, 2011). and applied to a

working group of CNR high-level researchers. The

method DMAIC-HS is constituted by five steps that

are:

 Design = problem recognition for development

of future technologies and/or innovation

actions to meet societal challenges.

 Measure = the overall appraisal of the

outstanding quality of S&T compliant with the

trends towards the future.

 Analyse = the analysis is to be performed with

a qualitative methodology based on intensive-

information experts workshops. The output

aims to develop synergies among processes

and to weight the relative importance to

influence strategic and innovation choices for

industrial developments and market changes.

 Improve and Control/Monitor = the analytics

exploit the discussions held in a push/pull

forward-looking areas to develop case studies

testing the qualitative methodology.

The Discussion and Prevision Group, formed by

CNR Chemistry Department researchers, is the

current practice to overcome the specializations in

chemistry (macromolecular, bio-sensor, bio-

catalysis, plastic materials, DNA, ...).

Horizon scanning is therefore finalized to

internally debate and prioritize future developments

focusing issues, promoting interdisciplinary across

several scientific and technological domains to

facilitate horizontal learning and thus overcoming

verticality and linearity of thinking processes.

6 SUPPORTING TRANSITION

To support the transition in the integrated

perspective, it is useful to catch in a dynamic way

the emerging situation at individual and

organizational level. To this understanding, good

practices provide qualitative information.

Researchers participating in CNR S&T Foresight

give and exchange contributions regarding

interdisciplinary field of societal interests. This is a

novelty in research activity as the project aims at

building a collective knowledge, a transparent

process and a free space.

Therefore, researchers need to adapt their linear

behaviour to fully participate in the foresight process

to overcome emerging barriers and silo-thinking

adding value to their knowledge.

6.1 Barriers and Contrasting Opinions

Role

KMIS and innovation in the context of the proposed

dynamic framework need to consider the difficulties

in transforming knowledge and practices. It is

considered then interesting to observe from the

current experience some aspects, representing the

“inertia” that emerge immediately from the current

experience among researchers of research

organizations such as National Research Council of

Italy. They represent a slow down signal of social

processes in research which should be monitored

during the perspective practices.

Indeed, at the end of the practices, this issue

vanishes and the final results consist of objects

producing policy briefs, notes following validation

workshops etc. With this aim, an in-house analysis

has been carried out on the behaviours of researchers

in the participatory process within the S&T

Foresight Project. This monitoring helps to identify

short term issues to be assessed and overcome for

success of this undertaking.

Emerging short-term barriers often occur in

project meetings and in follow-on discussion. In

wide participatory process, resistance and

polarization of opinions frequently occurs.

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

Motivational climate, friendly relationships, team

spirit and self-motivation, retreat for meeting outside

organization premises represent also short term

features to be addressed and researchers need to

consider them as key requirements for a successful

participatory process.

Other relevant issues are related to feeling of

uncertainty, risk analysis, self-learning, tendency to

close shops and excessive filtering; these issues

require to be turned into new capabilities of the

research work. In addition, work overload often

occurs and researchers’ extreme specialization

inhibits the participation. The mix of networked and

personal approach in many cases supports to take

care of personalized approaches and to resolve

issues.

Through the web platform, contrasting opinions -

emerging in this web-communication- exchange

complement the scientific and technological

knowledge and skills possessed by the researchers.

The dynamic and interactive network is capable

of contributing with continuity, creativity and

responsibility and the participatory process

reinforces the intellectual capital to react to

complexity. The complementary approach to this

regards experts’ interview on S&T developments

across disciplinary borders related to the four

selected topics described earlier. World experts’

interviews represent a source of information

regarding future developments. The identification

and selection of experts to be interviewed is an

important and specific activity often derived from

horizon scanning. Aim of the interview is the

validation and exploration of S&T areas with

impacts onto different domains. During the

interview, which also establishes a friendly climate,

each international expert is invited to freely express

his point of view discussing the future S&T of

current technologies and Frontier research

arguments in the next 10 years.

7 CONCLUSIONS

An interdisciplinary approach to science and

technology is core in the current industrial and

societal transformation. Science and technology

include other dimensions such as society and

environment which represent driving forces for the

global EU economy. The research change transition

looks at cross-cutting aspects such as development

of collective knowledge, awareness of ethical issues,

users and societal acceptability, analysis of benefits,

business planning and skill sets, assessment of risk.

All of them influence the development of proper

research policies highlighting aspects for increasing

impacts related to technological developments.

Research intellectual capital, therefore, is an

important asset for industry and society under a

continuous process of transformation since year

2000. Public research organizations and innovative

enterprises should consider managing and improving

their intellectual capital through an integrative

perspective.

Research intellectual capital holds a proactive

role in the dynamic framework described in this

paper. The decisive components Communication,

Navigation and Multicontact relationship- allow to

the transition overcoming the physical limitations

and facilitating the expansion of knowledge flows,

making research change possible to include cross-

cutting aspects.

In Italy, CNR S&T Foresight Project has been

launched to initiate the research change transition. It

facilitates bottom-up researchers interactions within

a community, with the aim to stimulate the

development of a collective intelligence at

interdisciplinary level to foster societal driven future

ideas and solutions.

To support the strengthening of the international

dimension, governmental organisations from outside

Europe and international organisations are planning

similar pathways planning coordinated foresight

actions.

CNR S&T Foresight Project was invited to join

the meeting of the Global Foresight Network (GNF)

for future collaboration among members to discuss

and exchange experiences in horizon scanning and

foresight practices. The ambitious goal is to develop

new approaches and activities enabling the research

intellectual capital to move fast toward a progressive

research change.

Going back to Beck’s message, science and

society need to overcome barriers and consider

impacts of R&D in a wider perspective. This R&D

will support industries and Country economies to

change products, processes and organisations thus

facing resources scarcity, energy efficiency, eco-

innovation and climate change for a sustainable

future and economic growth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors want to thank Ezio Andreta, Giorgio

Einaudi, Stephen Taylor, Anna D’Amato, all the

Coordinators of the CNR S/T Foresight Project and

Luigi Ambrosio director of CNR Department of

ResearchChangeinTransition

Chemical Science and Materials Technology for

their support.

REFERENCES

Accordino F.,2013. The Futurium - a Foresight Platform

for Evidence-Based and Participatory Policymaking,

Philos. Technol. DOI 10.1007/s13347-013-0108-9.

Alavi, M., Leidner D. E., 2001. Review: Knowledge

Management and Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues, MIS

Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1. (Mar., 2001), pp. 107-136.

Andreta E., Paci A.M., Taylor S. 2013. Participatory and

stakeholder engagement: The foresight initiative of

Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, in

European IFA Academic Seminar, 16-19 September

2013, Winterthur, Switzerland.

Bartolucci C., Paci A.M., Tampieri F., 2014. A Foresight

Perspective to the Role of Packaging in the

Sustainability of Food and Environment. Int. Conf.

Eco-sustainable Food Packaging Based on Polymer

Nanomaterials, Book of the Abstracts, Rome, 2014.

Beck U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New

Modernity,SAGE.

Burgelman J.C., Osimo D., Bogdanowicz M., 2010.

Science2.0 (Change will happen...), in First Monday,

July 5th, 2010, Vol 15:7,

http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2

961/2573.

Cagnin C., Keenan M., 2008. Positioning future-oriented

technology analysis, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan et al.

(Eds.), Future-oriented technology analysis: strategic

intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer.

Calof J., Smith J.E, 2008. Critical Success Factors For

Government Led Foresight, in 3

. Seville Sem. on

FTA: Impacts and implications for policy and

decision-making.

De Smedt P., 2008. Strategic intelligence in decision

making, in: Cagnin C., Keenan M. et al. (Eds.),

Future-oriented technology analysis: strategic

intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer.

Di Bello G., Andreta E., 2013. Industrial Competitiveness

in Horizon 2020: “Towards an integrated planning

framework for Key Enabling Technologies, January.

EC, 2012. Global Europe 2050, European Commission

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities

http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/global-

europe-2050-report_en.pdf.

EC, JRC, 2008. European Commission and Joint Research

Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

(Eds.),Book of abstracts of 3

International Seville

Seminar on FTA: Impacts and implications for policy

and decision-making, 2008.

EFP, 2012. The role of forward-looking activities for the

governance of Grand Challenges Insights from the

European Foresight Platform, ISBN 978-3-200-02811-

ERIAB, 2014. Placing excellence at the centre of research

and innovation policy: Innovation Union and

European Research Area (ERA) Stress Test. EC-

ERIAB, Draft publication, February 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-

union/pdf/expert-groups/ERA_STRESS_TEST-

Placing_excellence_at_the_centre_of_research_and_in

novation_policy.pdf.

Eriksson E.A., Weber K.M., 2006. Adaptive Foresight

Navigating the Complex Landscape of Policy

Strategies, Second International Seville Seminar on

Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impact of FTA

Approaches on Policy and Decision-Making, Seville,

Spain, 28-29 September.

Futman Project, 2003. The future of manufacturing in

Europe 2015-2020: the challenge of sustainability,

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pd

f/pro-futman-doc1-final-report-16-4-03.pdf.

Georghiou L. et al. (Eds), 2008. The Handbook of

Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice,

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gieseke S. 2012. FLA as a Means of Participation in

Modern democratic Decision Making, in: The role of

Forward-looking activities for the Governance of

Grand Challenges, European Foresight Platform.

Haegeman K.,Marinelli, E., Scapolo F., Ricci A., Sokolov

A, 2013. Quantitative and qualitative approaches in

Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From

combination to integration? In Technological

Forecasting & Social Change vol. 80 issue 3 March,

2013. p. 386-397.

HLG on KETs, 2011. High level group on key enabling

technologies. Final Report.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/kets/hlg_

report_final_en.pdf

JRC, 2013. The Foresight Study On How will standards

facilitate new production systems in the context of EU

innovation and competitiveness in 2025?Joint

Research Centre Final Report, November 2013.

McInerney, Claire R., Day, Ronald E. (Eds.), 2007. From

Knowledge Objects to Knowledge Processes Series:

Information Science and Knowledge Management,

Vol. 12, XII, Springer, 2007

Montalvo C., Tang P., Mollas-Gallart J., Vivarelli M.,

Marsilli O., Hoogendorn J., Leijten J., Butter M.,

Jansen G., Braun A., 2006. Driving factors and

challenges for EU industry and the role of R&D and

innovation, ed. European Techno-Economic Policy

Support Network (ETEPSAISBL). Brussels.

Paci A.M., 2011. New Trends in Research and Innovation:

Internationalization of Research Activities In 6th

International Working Conference “Total Quality

Management - Advanced and Intelligent

Approaches’’, Belgrade, Serbia.

Paci A.M., Chiacchio M.S., 2008. Futuring the Changing

World for Industrial Technologies, in Book of

Abstracts of 3

International Seville Seminar on

Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and

implications for policy and decision-making.

KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

Paci A.M, Lalle C., Chiacchio M.S., 2013. Education for

Innovation: Trends, Collaborations and Views in

Special Issue on Engineering Education, J. Intell:

Manuf 24:487-493 DOI: 10.1007/s10845-012-0631-z.

Taylor S., 2004. The Scan™ Process and Technology

Foresight,

http://www.cgee.org.br/atividades/redirKori/118.

Schatzi T. 2001. Practice theory. In Schatzki T., Knorr

Cetina K., Von Savigny E. The Practice Turn in

Contemporary Theory. New York, Routledge.

Swan J. 2007. Managing Knowledge for Innovation in

McInerney, Claire R., Day, Ronald E. (Eds.) From

Knowledge Objects to Knowledge Processes Series:

Information Science and Knowledge Management,

Vol. 12, XII, Springer, 2007 pp 147-169.

Van der Gießen A., Marinelli E., 2012. The Value of FLA

for strategic policy making, in European Foresight

Platform: The role of forward-looking activities for

the governance of Grand Challenges Insights from the

European Foresight Platform, pages 22-30.

VERA, 2013. VERA 2030 ERA Scenario, Short version

of D3.1 ERA Scenario Report, November.

http://www.eravisions.eu/page/36/attach/VERA_2030

_ERA_Scenarios.pdf.

ResearchChangeinTransition