IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v115y2017icp338-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A portfolio analysis methodology to inform innovation policy and foresight

Author

Listed:
  • do Couto e Silva, Eduardo
  • Silberglitt, Richard
  • Machado, Lucas Chieregatti
  • Maia, Jackson Max Furtunato
  • Cagnin, Cristiano Hugo

Abstract

This paper describes a new method for combining innovation foresight, country's innovation indices, and decision analysis to identify the best combination of investments to improve national innovation systems, using Brazil as the example. The sub-pillars for human factors for innovation of the Global Innovation Index (GII) (Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, 2014) are used to develop a gap coverage matrix that is analysed using the Portman method (Chow et al., 2011), to enable the identification of an optimum portfolio of investments, taking into account the level of funding for each program and any interrelationships between them. The methodology could either be refined through a foresight exercise or provide inputs to a foresight study for innovation policy that would generate threshold values for the gaps and describe their relative importance. The latter could provide an explicit and quantitative guide to decision-makers in the implementation of the foresight results. The implications of the method for FTA practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • do Couto e Silva, Eduardo & Silberglitt, Richard & Machado, Lucas Chieregatti & Maia, Jackson Max Furtunato & Cagnin, Cristiano Hugo, 2017. "A portfolio analysis methodology to inform innovation policy and foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 338-347.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:338-347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016251630141X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cristiano Cagnin & Effie Amanatidou & Michael Keenan, 2012. "Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 140-152, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huarng, Kun-Huang & Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang, 2022. "Analysis of Global Innovation Index by structural qualitative association," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Yigitcanlar, Tan & Sabatini-Marques, Jamile & da-Costa, Eduardo Moreira & Kamruzzaman, Md & Ioppolo, Giuseppe, 2019. "Stimulating technological innovation through incentives: Perceptions of Australian and Brazilian firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 403-412.
    3. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Johnston, Ron & Saritas, Ozcan, 2017. "FTA and Innovation Systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-239.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander Sokolov & Alexander Chulok, 2012. "Russian Science and Technology Foresight – 2030: Key Features and First Results," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 12-25.
    2. Rik B Braams & Joeri H Wesseling & Albert J Meijer & Marko P Hekkert, 2022. "Understanding why civil servants are reluctant to carry out transition tasks [“Legitimation” and “development of positive Externalities”: Two Key Processes in the Formation Phase of Technological I," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 905-914.
    3. Jan H. Kwakkel & Erik Pruyt, 2015. "Using System Dynamics for Grand Challenges: The ESDMA Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 358-375, May.
    4. Martin, Hanna & Martin, Roman & Zukauskaite, Elena, 2018. "The Multiple Roles of Demand in Regional Development A Conceptual Analysis," Papers in Innovation Studies 2018/10, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    5. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Andersen, Per Dannemand, 2014. "Innovation system foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 276-286.
    6. Jolita Ceicyte & Monika Petraite, 2018. "Networked Responsibility Approach for Responsible Innovation: Perspective of the Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Iris Wanzenböck & Koen Frenken, 2018. "The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1806, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2018.
    8. John Rigby & Barbara Jones, 2020. "Bringing the doctoral thesis by published papers to the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A quantitative easing? A small study of doctoral thesis submission rules and practice in two disciplines in ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1387-1409, August.
    9. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    10. Ramirez, Matias & Bernal, Paloma & Clarke, Ian & Hernandez, Ivan, 2018. "The role of social networks in the inclusion of small-scale producers in agri-food developing clusters," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 59-70.
    11. Wouter Boon & Jakob Edler, 2018. "Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 435-447.
    12. Iris Wanzenböck & Joeri H Wesseling & Koen Frenken & Marko P Hekkert & K Matthias Weber, 0. "A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 474-489.
    13. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Johnston, Ron & Saritas, Ozcan, 2017. "FTA and Innovation Systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-239.
    14. Jiqing Liu & Gui Zhang & Xiaojing Lv & Jiayu Li, 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    15. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    16. Wouter van de & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros & Tim Willemse & Ismael Rafols, 2023. "Priorities in research portfolios: exploring the need for upstream research in cardiometabolic and mental health," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 961-976.
    17. Grillitsch, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Coenen, Lars & Miörner, Johan & Moodysson, Jerker, 2019. "Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1048-1061.
    18. Bernd Carsten Stahl & Job Timmermans & Catherine Flick, 2017. "Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 369-381.
    19. Coenen, Lars & Grillitsch, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Moodysson, Jerker, 2017. "An innovation system framework for system innovation policy: the case of Strategic Innovation Programs (SIPs) in Sweden," Papers in Innovation Studies 2017/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    20. Paliokaitė, Agnė & Martinaitis, Žilvinas & Sarpong, David, 2016. "Implementing smart specialisation roadmaps in Lithuania: Lost in translation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 143-152.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:338-347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.