0
TUTUHESAN ALUSTUSIDEAS FOR TECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENT                                                                           ...
AGENDA• Introduction• The IDEAS method• Evaluation of the method• Ideas for technology management - reflections           ...
INTRODUCTION                                                                               3               TULEVAISUUDENTU...
BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FORMETHOD DEVELOPMENT• Uncertainty and change are ever present in strategic management    “Nothi...
RESEARCH GAP AND MISSION• There is a continuing need for tools to ‘robustify’ management , and    • Strategic and technolo...
THE CHALLENGEThe river metaphor for strategic management (Lamberg and Parvinen,2003)Aspects of strategic management      D...
INTRODUCTIONTHE IDEAS METHOD                                                                              7              T...
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHOD• Built around a generic scenario process   • Enables further development• The tested method ...
PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED                                                                                 ...
PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTION   SUMMARIZED Insights from an expert panel through electronic                             ...
PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED                                                                                 ...
PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED                                                                                 ...
EVALUATION OF THE METHODRESEARCH DESIGN                                                                             13    ...
RESEARCH APPROACH AND POSITION• As a background philosophy we assume pragmatism:   • We get knowledge of the world by form...
DSR FRAMEWORK            (Business)                                      Design Science                                   ...
EVALUATION FOR THE DESIGN (THEORY)Class             Evaluation approaches                  Position in the thesis         ...
EVALUATION OF THE METHODFINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS                                                                          ...
OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLICATIONSc.f. Piirainen, K.A. (2010) for details               Paper 1        Paper 2         Paper 3  ...
FINDINGS 1/2: SUMMARY OF THE      EVALUATION OF THE THIRD INSTANTIATIONSuccess criteria                            Reflect...
FINDINGS 2/2: EVALUATION OF IDEAS  AGAINST PEERSMethods        IDEAS                                  SAGES               ...
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ARTIFACT• A lot of effort was devoted to develop the method, but despite the  method the scenarios ...
CONCLUSIONS• In sum we visit the Hevner criteria for successful/complete DSR:   1.We have produced a viable artifact and a...
REFLECTIONS BASED ON THEGATHERED EXPERIENCE                                                                             23...
CAN WE GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE WITH IDEAS METHOD ?• If you spend any amount of time with FS, you’ll bump into this pr...
HOW CAN WE REAP THE BENEFITS FROM FUTURE INFORMATION?• FS doesn’t generally happen in a  vacuum   • There is the perceived...
WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVEBY USING FS THEN?• The main objective in FS is not necessarily to forecast accurately, but  to get to k...
LEARNING ABOUT AND FROM FS• Besides the actual future foresight/-casts, the process, methods  and the product of FS can be...
HOW ABOUT THE DOWNSIDES?• As discussed, in the strictest sense FS have limited contribution to our  knowledge   • While th...
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!KALLE A. PIIRAINENCONSULTANT, DR. SC. (TECH.)KALLE.PIIRAINEN@R-M.COM+358 405 838 348RAMBOLL MANA...
LITERATURE 1/3• Bell, W. (1997), Foundations of Futures Studies, Vol. 1&2, Transaction Publishers,  New Brunswick, NJ• Bis...
LITERATURE 2/3• Kivijärvi, H., Piirainen, K.A. & Tuominen, M. (2011) ”Scenario Process as a  Community for Organizational ...
LITERATURE 3/3• Piirainen, K.A., Briggs, R.O. (2011) "Design Theory in Practice – Making Design  Science Research More Tra...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Piirainen 2012 ideas_for_technology_management_tutuhesan alustus-v1

867

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
867
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Piirainen 2012 ideas_for_technology_management_tutuhesan alustus-v1"

  1. 1. TUTUHESAN ALUSTUSIDEAS FOR TECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENT 1 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  2. 2. AGENDA• Introduction• The IDEAS method• Evaluation of the method• Ideas for technology management - reflections TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION 3 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  4. 4. BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FORMETHOD DEVELOPMENT• Uncertainty and change are ever present in strategic management “Nothing 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. scenario planning, 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  5. 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 with substantial sunken costs• The techniques need to be usable • Generally poor (perceived) ROI on foresight investment with existing• The research mission was to “Design a scenario method to aid strategic technology management which adds to the state-of-the-art methods”• RQs: • What are the business need and challenges for scenario planning in strategic technology management? • How we can improve the effectiveness of scenario planning process in answering to these challenges? • How these methods are implemented to improve the state-of-the-art of scenario methods? TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  6. 6. THE CHALLENGEThe river metaphor for strategic management (Lamberg and Parvinen,2003)Aspects of strategic management Details of the river metaphor - Decision making is bound by past decisionsRole of evolution and dynamics in and 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 making TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 - Actors, organizations and the environments are interlinked on different levels
  7. 7. INTRODUCTIONTHE IDEAS METHOD 7 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  8. 8. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHOD• Built around a generic scenario process • Enables further development• The tested method was an intuitive-logical variant where the scenario data was gathered from a panel • Electronically mediated panel discussion during one-day workshop • Scenario logic is based on analysis of event’s likelihood and probability • In effect creates a likely, a favorable and an unfavorable scenario TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  9. 9. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED 1 More private sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3 As technology advances, Research gains importance new ventures will take their as a factor of national place beside basic industry competitiveness, which encourages more profound teaching instead of mass degrees Generic scenario 4 Due to higher demand and competition, the research scope deepens and process perspective widens Identification Composition of Problem Evaluation of the preliminary Final Scenarios Implementation setting of results drivers of change scenarios Iteration Scenario sets 10,00 9,00 8,00 Scenario 3 7,00 6,00 Scenario 1 Impact 5,00 4,00 3,00 Scenario 2 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
  10. 10. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTION SUMMARIZED Insights from an expert panel through electronic 1 More private discussion sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3 As technology advances, Research gains importance new ventures will take their as a factor of national place beside basic industry competitiveness, which encourages more profound teaching instead of mass degrees 4 Due to higher demand and competition, the research scope deepens and perspective widens Identification Composition of Problem Evaluation of the preliminary Final Scenarios Implementation setting of results drivers of change scenarios Iteration Scenario sets 10,00 9,00 8,00 Scenario 3 7,00 6,00 Scenario 1 ImpactInsights from an 5,00 4,00 3,00 Scenario 2expert panel through 2,00 1,00electronic discussion 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
  11. 11. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED 1 More private sector funding, closer cooperation 2 3 As technology advances, Research gains importance new ventures will take their as a factor of national place beside basic industry competitiveness, which encourages more profound teaching instead of mass degrees 4 Due to higher demand and competition, the research scope deepens and perspective widens Identification Composition of Problem Evaluation of the preliminary Final Scenarios Implementation setting of results drivers of change scenarios Iteration Scenario sets 10,00 9,00 8,00 Scenario 3 7,00 6,00 Scenario 1 Impact 5,00 4,00 3,00 Scenario 2 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 Impact-based scenario
  12. 12. PRINCIPLES OF FORM AND FUNCTIONSUMMARIZED 1 Driver and More private sector funding, closer cooperation scenario maps 2 3 As technology advances, Research gains importance new ventures will take their as a factor of national place beside basic industry competitiveness, which encourages more profound teaching instead of mass degrees 4 Due to higher demand and competition, the research scope deepens and perspective widens Identification Composition of Problem Evaluation of the preliminary Final Scenarios Implementation setting of results drivers of change scenarios Iteration Scenario sets 10,00 9,00 8,00 Scenario 3 7,00 6,00 Scenario 1 Impact 5,00 4,00 3,00 Scenario 2 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 0,40 Probability 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
  13. 13. EVALUATION OF THE METHODRESEARCH DESIGN 13 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  14. 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, and 2) 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  15. 15. DSR FRAMEWORK (Business) Design Science (Scientific) Environment Research Knowledge Base Synthesis/, construction/ design People of - Roles - Capabilities, skills -Artifacts Foundations - Characteristics -Theories - Theories Design Cycle Rigor Cycle - Frameworks Relevance Cycle Organizations - Existing artifacts - Strategies, mission - Requirements and - Build - Theoretical grounding of design constraints for design - Evaluate - Structure - Field testing - Improve - Refinement of existing Methodologies - Imlementation knowledge - Processes, routines - Research designs - Evaluation/validation Tecnologies Evaluation, criteria - Infrastructure validation - Analytical frameworks, - Architecture through methods - Applications - Measures, instruments - Development 1. Use cases capabilities 2. 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  16. 16. EVALUATION FOR THE DESIGN (THEORY)Class Evaluation approaches Position in the thesis Case study of the (instantiation of) theObservational: artifact in business Case studies are included tofield study of environment gain a better understandinginstantiations how and why the artifact works Field study/Multiple case study Experimentation/testing is usedTesting: to test the basic idea, to Structural testing of thefunctional or achieve a proof-of-concept instantiationstructuralDescriptive:plausibility of Informed argument for the Built-in in the design of thethe artifact in plausibility of the artifact artifactuse cases TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  17. 17. EVALUATION OF THE METHODFINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 17 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  18. 18. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLICATIONSc.f. Piirainen, K.A. (2010) for details Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper 4 Paper 5 Paper 6 To test whether a To test GSS can To describe scenario To compare To position the DT To position theResearch be used to the (first planning in two different and to DT to priormission facilitate instantiated) technology scenario communicate the work the artifact managemen methods findings scenario t context process Experiment Description Benchmarkin Case study, Comparison of Outlining the al testing, of the g the satisfaction methods to contributionMethods, satisfaction artifact, methods, questionnair previous throughmeasures questionnai overview of description of e, practice, description and re, the the scenarios, observations reflections reflection interviews scenarios reflections Evaluation of the Comparison basic Overview to DrawingContribution of the artifact Further framework the Evaluation conclusion andto the and (meta-) evaluation, for the principles of of the observationsdesign and design to an positioning and electronical form and artifact in together,evaluation established communication ly function and MoT context communicatingof the DT scenario of the results mediated the artifact the results TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012 method scenario process
  19. 19. FINDINGS 1/2: SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION OF THE THIRD INSTANTIATIONSuccess criteria Reflective 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 ‘peripheral vision’ - 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 participants’Relevance 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 scenarios shortcomingPreserving 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  20. 20. FINDINGS 2/2: EVALUATION OF IDEAS AGAINST PEERSMethods IDEAS SAGES FAR - Rigorous heuristic to - Effective and fast create scenarios - Effective process, fast process - Transparent and - Process structure and results auditable logic to find theStrengths sturdy heuristic support worldviews - Does not consume expert scenario creation - Enforces rigorous time excessively - Taking both expert thinking and exploration panel 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 sizesWeaknesses reduce the trust on - The final scenarios are composition as intuitive as in the generated quantitative - Results are hard to quantify comparison methods, can data 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 policy level scenarios scenarios and partly for or similar sub-entity technology scenarios TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  21. 21. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ARTIFACT• A lot of effort was devoted to develop the method, but despite the method 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 also powerful 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 results TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  22. 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 audiences TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  23. 23. REFLECTIONS BASED ON THEGATHERED EXPERIENCE 23 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  24. 24. CAN WE GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE WITH IDEAS METHOD ?• If you spend any amount of time with FS, you’ll bump into this problem (for discussion 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  25. 25. HOW CAN WE REAP THE BENEFITS FROM FUTURE INFORMATION?• FS doesn’t generally happen in a vacuum • 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 foresight are: 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  26. 26. WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVEBY USING FS THEN?• The main objective in FS is not necessarily to forecast accurately, but to 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 one’s best knowledge just to influence policy, it’s a questionable practice TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  27. 27. LEARNING ABOUT AND FROM FS• Besides the actual future foresight/-casts, the process, methods and 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 (Kivijärvi, 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  28. 28. HOW ABOUT THE DOWNSIDES?• As discussed, in the strictest sense FS have limited contribution to our knowledge • 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 worth thinking 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  29. 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. 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 scenario development: 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), “The Origins and Evolution of Scenario Techniques in Long Range Business Planning,” Futures, vol. 37, pp. 795-812.• Börjeson, L., Höjer, M. Dreborg, K.-H. Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (2006), “Scenario Types and Techniques: Towards a User’s 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 Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly. 28(1), 75—105.• Hevner, A.R. (2007) “A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research,” SJIS, 19(2), 39—64 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  31. 31. LITERATURE 2/3• Kivijärvi, H., Piirainen, K.A. & Tuominen, M. (2011) ”Scenario Process as a Community for Organizational Knowledge Creation and Sharing”, in Fred, A., Dietz, J.L.G., Liu, K., Filipe, J. (eds.) Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering, and Knowledge 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 foresight with electronically mediated processes”, Foresight, Vol. 12, N. 2, pp. 16-37.• Piirainen, K.A. (2010) “IDEAS for Strategic Technology Management: Design of an electronically mediated scenario method” (Diss.) Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 406, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-214-998-5. TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN SEURAN HELSINGIN TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  32. 32. LITERATURE 3/3• Piirainen, K.A., Briggs, R.O. (2011) "Design Theory in Practice – Making Design Science Research More Transparent", in Jain, H., Sinha, A.P. and Vitharana, P. (eds.) Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research, Lecture Notes in Computer 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 TOIMINTARYHMÄ 27/3/2012
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×