1. TUTUHESAN ALUSTUSIDEAS FOR TECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENT 1 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012

2. AGENDA Introduction The IDEAS method Evaluation of the method Ideas for technology management - reflections TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 3. INTRODUCTION 3 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 4. BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FORMETHOD DEVELOPMENT Uncertainty and change are ever present in strategic managementNothing endures but change. (Herakleitos, c. 535-475BCE) Strategic management is still often based on snapshot analysis Traditional planning does not account for uncertainty well Many popular management analysis techniques, e.g. SWOT, PESTEL, are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal There are techniques to look past the veil of uncertainty, e.g. scenarioplanning, but there are challenges to it: Resource heavy processes and methods Unstructured and esoteric method descriptions Poor perceived yields and strategic impact TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 5. RESEARCH GAP AND MISSION There is a continuing need for tools to robustify management , and Strategic and technology management deal with far-reaching decisions withsubstantial sunken costs The techniques need to be usable Generally poor (perceived) ROI on foresight investment with existing The research mission was toDesign a scenario method to aid strategic technology management which adds tothe state-of-the-art methods RQs: What are the business need and challenges for scenario planning in strategictechnology management? How we can improve the effectiveness of scenario planning process inanswering to these challenges? How these methods are implemented to improve the state-of-the-art ofscenario methods? TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 6. THE CHALLENGEThe river metaphor for strategic management (Lamberg and Parvinen,2003)Aspects of strategic managementDetails of the river metaphor - Decision making is bound by past decisionsRole of evolution and dynamics inand present resources,decision making - Once made, decisions can not be reversed - Time moves constantly, and (some) decisions have an appropriate time window,Time and timing - Cycles and phases in the industry are relevant to decision making - Strategic decisions are based on the environment, butIndustry co-evolution- Strategies shape the environment, - Strategy making is a process of co- evolution - The mass and velocity of the organizationMomentum are in correlation with the amount of strategic inertia - Decisions are complex and involve unpredictable contingencies,Systemic nature of decision makingTULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 - Actors, organizations and the environments are interlinked on different levels 7. INTRODUCTIONTHE IDEAS METHOD7TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 8. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHOD Built around a generic scenario process Enables further development The tested method was an intuitive-logical variant where thescenario data was gathered from a panel Electronically mediated panel discussion during one-day workshop Scenario logic is based on analysis of events likelihood and probability In effect creates a likely, a favorable and an unfavorable scenario TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 9. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED1 More private sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3As technology advances, Research gains importancenew ventures will take theiras a factor of nationalplace beside basic industry competitiveness,which encourages moreprofound teaching insteadof mass degrees Generic scenario 4Due to higher demand andcompetition, the researchscope deepens and processperspective widens IdentificationComposition ofProblemEvaluation of the preliminary Final ScenariosImplementation settingof results drivers of change scenariosIterationScenario sets 10,009,008,00Scenario 37,006,00Scenario 1Impact5,004,003,00 Scenario 22,001,000,000,00 0,100,200,30TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 10. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTION SUMMARIZED Insights from an expert panel through electronic 1 More private discussion sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3As technology advances, Research gains importancenew ventures will take theiras a factor of nationalplace beside basic industry competitiveness,which encourages moreprofound teaching insteadof mass degrees 4Due to higher demand andcompetition, the researchscope deepens andperspective widens IdentificationComposition ofProblemEvaluation of the preliminary Final ScenariosImplementation settingof results drivers of change scenariosIterationScenario sets 10,009,008,00Scenario 37,006,00Scenario 1ImpactInsights from an5,004,003,00 Scenario 2expert panel through2,001,00electronic discussion0,000,00 0,100,200,30TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 11. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED1 More private sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3As technology advances, Research gains importancenew ventures will take theiras a factor of nationalplace beside basic industry competitiveness,which encourages moreprofound teaching insteadof mass degrees 4Due to higher demand andcompetition, the researchscope deepens andperspective widens IdentificationComposition ofProblemEvaluation of the preliminary Final ScenariosImplementation settingof results drivers of change scenariosIterationScenario sets 10,009,008,00Scenario 37,006,00Scenario 1Impact5,004,003,00 Scenario 22,001,000,000,00 0,100,200,30TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80Impact-based scenario 12. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED1Driver and More private sector funding, closer cooperationscenario maps 2 3As technology advances, Research gains importancenew ventures will take theiras a factor of nationalplace beside basic industry competitiveness,which encourages moreprofound teaching insteadof mass degrees 4Due to higher demand andcompetition, the researchscope deepens andperspective widens IdentificationComposition ofProblemEvaluation of the preliminary Final ScenariosImplementation settingof results drivers of change scenariosIterationScenario sets 10,009,008,00Scenario 37,006,00Scenario 1Impact5,004,003,00 Scenario 22,001,000,000,00 0,100,200,30TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 13. EVALUATION OF THE METHODRESEARCH DESIGN 13TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 14. RESEARCH APPROACH AND POSITION As a background philosophy we assume pragmatism: We get knowledge of the world by formulating propositions and testing whether they are:1) truthful in the sense that they have the consequence we anticipate,and2) they are useful In other words: we learn through design of solutions The research follows the design science approach We design a solution to a relevant business problem and evaluate it TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 15. DSR FRAMEWORK(Business)Design Science(Scientific) EnvironmentResearchKnowledge Base Synthesis/,construction/ design Peopleof - Roles - Capabilities, skills-Artifacts Foundations - Characteristics -Theories- TheoriesDesign CycleRigor Cycle - FrameworksRelevance CycleOrganizations - Existing artifacts - Strategies, mission - Requirements and- Build - Theoretical grounding of designconstraints for design - Evaluate - Structure- Field testing- Improve - Refinement of existingMethodologies - Imlementationknowledge - Processes, routines- Research designs- Evaluation/validationTecnologies Evaluation, criteria - Infrastructurevalidation - Analytical frameworks, - Architecture through methods - Applications - Measures, instruments - Development 1. Use cases capabilities2. Structural analysis 3. Testing 4. Experiments 5. ObservationThe framework and the three cycles of DSR (adapted from Hevner et al. 2004; Hevner, 2007) TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 16. EVALUATION FOR THE DESIGN (THEORY)Class Evaluation approachesPosition in the thesisCase study of the(instantiation of) theObservational:artifact in business Case studies are included tofield study ofenvironmentgain a better understandinginstantiations how and why the artifact worksField study/Multiple casestudy Experimentation/testing is usedTesting: to test the basic idea, toStructural testing of thefunctional orachieve a proof-of-conceptinstantiationstructuralDescriptive:plausibility of Informed argument for theBuilt-in in the design of thethe artifact in plausibility of the artifact artifactuse cases TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 17. EVALUATION OF THE METHODFINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS17 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 18. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLICATIONSc.f. Piirainen, K.A. (2010) for details Paper 1Paper 2 Paper 3Paper 4Paper 5 Paper 6 To test whether aTo test GSS canTo describe scenario To compare To position the DTTo position theResearch be used to the (firstplanning intwo differentand toDT to priormissionfacilitate instantiated) technology scenario communicate thework theartifactmanagemenmethodsfindings scenario t context process Experiment DescriptionBenchmarkinCase study, Comparison of Outlining the al testing,of the g thesatisfactionmethods tocontributionMethods, satisfaction artifact,methods,questionnairpreviousthroughmeasures questionnaioverview ofdescription ofe,practice, description and re,thethe scenarios,observationsreflections reflection interviews scenariosreflections Evaluation of theComparison basicOverview to DrawingContributionof the artifactFurther frameworkthe Evaluationconclusion andto theand (meta-)evaluation, for theprinciples of of theobservationsdesign anddesign to an positioning and electronical form andartifact in together,evaluationestablishedcommunication ly function andMoT context communicatingof the DT scenario of the results mediated the artifactthe resultsTULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012method scenario process 19. FINDINGS 1/2: SUMMARY OF THEEVALUATION OF THE THIRD INSTANTIATIONSuccess criteriaReflective evaluation+ The scenarios are coherent and consistent with the drivers and time frameConsistency and coherence of theindividual scenarios- The scenarios are quite convergent, they included only limited peripheralvision- The level of analysis is tied to the groupRight level of analysis and compatibilitywith the time frame and drivers + The scenarios are compatible with the chosen scope+ The scenarios are presumably relevant as they are tied to the participantsRelevance to the organization and viewsdecision makers- Accordingly the panel should be chosen carefullySufficiently detailed scenarios,+ The underlying logic of the scenario are well illustrated by the mapsmanageable breadth and depth+ The number of scenarios can be chosen as needed, usually three or four- The basic optimistic, pessimistic realistic/most plausible setting can be aRight number of scenariosshortcomingPreserving the undertones and nuances in+ The nuances of the discussion are conveyed by the GSS logs and sessionthe final scenarios notesChoice of proper method and rigorous- The perspective bias should be recognized while using IDEASexecutionTransparent documentation of the whole+ The GSS log and session notes assure transparencyproject and evaluation of the resultsTrust building in the process and in- Facilitation is in a key position to build trust in to the scenarioscommunication of the scenarios TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 20. FINDINGS 2/2: EVALUATION OF IDEASAGAINST PEERSMethodsIDEASSAGESFAR - Rigorous heuristic to- Effective and fast create scenarios - Effective process, fastprocess - Transparent and- Process structure and results auditable logic to find theStrengths sturdy heuristic support worldviews - Does not consume expertscenario creation - Enforces rigorous time excessively - Taking both expert thinking and explorationpanel and published info of the limits of possibility - Participant perspective bias- Choice of the- Partial participant - Intuitive structure eludes perspective bias sectors/drivers and factors steer the results analytical scenario- Small sample sizesWeaknessesreduce the trust on - The final scenarios are composition as intuitive as in thegenerated quantitative - Results are hard to quantifycomparison methods, candata be misleading and present as hard facts - Business strategy - Roadmapping scenarios (both industryPossible - Technology scenarios inside and company levels) - Policy and other high-applications an R&D group, department- Suitable also for policylevel scenarios scenarios and partly for or similar sub-entity technology scenarios TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 21. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ARTIFACT A lot of effort was devoted to develop the method, but despite themethod the scenarios are only as good as the input (remember,G.i.G.o.) The choice of the panel is one of the most important design choices Some of the methods are less vulnerable to panel bias, e.g. FAR or MIC-MAC force critical and rigorous thinking upon the team The impact-based heuristic is easy and intuitive, and alsopowerful when enhanced with cluster analysis However, cluster analysis does not add information to the data or bring new insights or otherwise transcend the results Clustering can be used to group the events, but if in doubt, it should not be used mechanically to scientisize the resultsTULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 22. CONCLUSIONS In sum we visit the Hevner criteria for successful/complete DSR: 1.We have produced a viable artifact and a DT 2.The DT instantiated as a solution to a relevant business problem 3.We have demonstrated the utility, quality and efficacy of the artifact rigorously 4.We contribute both through the artifact and to the foundations of design The DT extends the state of the art in scenario planning 5. We have evaluated and constructed the DT rigorously 6.We have searched solutions to optimize the solution within the constraints/requirements 7.We have communicated the results to both technical and business audiencesTULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 23. REFLECTIONS BASED ON THEGATHERED EXPERIENCE 23TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 24. CAN WE GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE WITH IDEAS METHOD ? If you spend any amount of time with FS, youll bump into this problem (fordiscussion see e.g. Niiniluoto, 2001; Bell, 1997; Dragos Aligica, 2003) The answer is up to you: Based on a narrow logical positivist view: NO Based on a narrow post-modern view: YES The moderate, common sense, view is: done with due diligence, FS can be at least akin to scientific research But this is slightly beside the point, because FS is a useful skill, an art,and a profession (e.g. Glenn, 2009) FS is often not about how valid conjectures we can make, but about what we can achieve with them The process of doing FS and the product can be a very useful TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 25. HOW CAN WE REAP THE BENEFITS FROM FUTURE INFORMATION? FS doesnt generally happen in avacuum There is the perceived problem, often it is quite practical There are the outputs that should help to solve the problem The basic steps that create foresightare:1. Analysis of the present environment A generic foresight process and framework (Voros,2. Assessment of the findings 2003)3. Laying the possibilities out for the audience TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 26. WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVEBY USING FS THEN? The main objective in FS is not necessarily to forecast accurately, butto get to know what we do not know, but need to (Glenn, 2009) The process opens up the participants perspectives, results in a more future-oriented mind frame Challenges conventional wisdom, gives a more innovative outlook FS can highlight the importance of something already in view, but not recognized FS can, and also often seems to, be used as a leverage to influence(business) policy Although, if one bends the facts against ones best knowledge just to influence policy, its a questionable practice TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 27. LEARNING ABOUT AND FROM FS Besides the actual future foresight/-casts, the process, methodsand the product of FS can be objects of fruitful study Actually this type of research might contribute more to our knowledge than just repeating foresight exercises The products of FS are (Kivijrvi, et al. 2011): Knowledge artifacts: qualitative forecasts/foresight and knowledge about the future Representations: they embody the built-in assumptions the participants have about the future A (learning) process: the process creates shared understanding about the organizations goals, the peoples beliefs and assumptions TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 28. HOW ABOUT THE DOWNSIDES? As discussed, in the strictest sense FS have limited contribution to ourknowledge While the process for FS is a learning process, the reports are not knowledge in the full positive sense Despite due diligence, FS are still educated guesses how thing will go one should not rely on foresight as it were a report of the future As for normative FS, each to ones own, but there are a few aspects worththinking about Who is going to pay the price for bad advice? you want to be careful and think before giving explicit normative recommendations There is sometimes a short distance between wanting to have certain findings and implications, and bending the research that way TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 29. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!KALLE A. PIIRAINENCONSULTANT, DR. SC. (TECH.)KALLE.PIIRAINEN@R-M.COM+358 405 838 348RAMBOLL MANAGEMENT CONSULTINGMIKONKATU 15A00100 HELSINKIFINLAND 30. LITERATURE 1/3 Bell, W. (1997), Foundations of Futures Studies, Vol. 1&2, Transaction Publishers,New Brunswick, NJ Bishop, P., Hines, A. and Collins, T. (2007), The current state of scenariodevelopment: an overview of techniques", Foresight, Vol. 9, N. 1, pp. 5 25. Bradfield, R., G. Wright, G. Burt, G. Cairns and van der Heijden, K. (2005), TheOrigins and Evolution of Scenario Techniques in Long Range Business Planning,Futures, vol. 37, pp. 795-812. Brjeson, L., Hjer, M. Dreborg, K.-H. Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (2006), ScenarioTypes and Techniques: Towards a Users Guide, Futures, vol. 38, pp. 723-739. Dragos Aligia P. (2003) Prediction, explanation and epistemology of future studies,Futures, Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 1027-1040. Hevner, A.R., Ram, S., March, S.T., Park, J. (2004) Design Science in InformationSystems Research, MIS Quarterly. 28(1), 75105. Hevner, A.R. (2007) A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research, SJIS, 19(2),3964 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 31. LITERATURE 2/3 Kivijrvi, H., Piirainen, K.A. & Tuominen, M. (2011) Scenario Process as aCommunity for Organizational Knowledge Creation and Sharing, in Fred, A., Dietz,J.L.G., Liu, K., Filipe, J. (eds.) Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering, andKnowledge Management, Communications in Computer and Information Science(CCIS) 128, Springer Verlag, pp. 364-376. Niiniluoto, I (2001). Future Studies: Science or Art? Futures, vol. 33. pp. 371-377. Piirainen, K. and Lindqvist, A. (2010), Enhancing business and technology foresightwith electronically mediated processes, Foresight, Vol. 12, N. 2, pp. 16-37. Piirainen, K.A. (2010) IDEAS for Strategic Technology Management: Design of anelectronically mediated scenario method (Diss.) Acta UniversitatisLappeenrantaensis 406, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,Finland. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-214-998-5. TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012 32. LITERATURE 3/3 Piirainen, K.A., Briggs, R.O. (2011) "Design Theory in Practice Making DesignScience Research More Transparent", in Jain, H., Sinha, A.P. and Vitharana, P. (eds.)Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research, Lecture Notes inComputer Science (LNCS), Volume 662, Springer Verlag, pp. 47-61. Voros, J. (2003) A generic foresight process framework Foresight, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.10-21.TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHM 27/3/2012