A case study in participatory priority setting for a scandinavian research program

International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 65-88

  Salo, Ahti ^a   Liesiö, Juuso ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; Group support systems; Research and technology development programs; Research evaluation; Technology foresight

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746253189     PISSN: 02196220     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0219622006001873     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. F. Hartwich and W. Janssen, Setting research priorities: an example from agriculture using the analytic hierarchy process, Res. Eval. 9(3) (2000) 201-210.
2. M. Keenan, Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience, J. Forecasting 22(2-3) (2003) 129-160.
3. OECD, Choosing Priorities in Science and Technology (OECD, Paris, 1991).
4. R. Smits and S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innovation Policy 1(1-2) (2004) 4-32.
5. H. Grupp and H. H. Linstone, National technology foresight activities around the globe, Technol. Forecasting Social Change 60 (1999) 85-94.
6. A. D. Henriksen and A. J. Traynor, A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool, IEEE Trans. Eng. Mgmt. 46(2) (1999) 158-170.
7. D. L. Keefer, C. W. Kirkwood and J. L. Corner, Perspective on decision analysis applications, 1990-2001, Decision Anal. 1(1) (2004) 5-24.
8. R. P. Hämäläinen, Reversing the perspective on the applications of decision analysis, Decision Anal. 1(1) (2004) 26-31.
9. D. Loveridge, Technology and environmental impact assessment: methods and synthesis, Int. J. Technol. Mgmt. 11(5-6) (1996) 539-553.
10. J.-P. Salmenkaita and A. Salo, Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies, Technol. Anal. Strategic Mgmt. 14(2) (2002) 183-200.
11. B. van der Meulen, Science policies as principal-agent games: institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science, Res. Policy 27(4) (1998) 397-414.
12. M. MacLean, J. Anderson and B. R. Martin, Identifying research priorities in public sector funding agencies: mapping science outputs to user needs, Technol. Anal. Strategic Mgmt. 10(2) (1998) 139-155.
13. B. R. Martin, Foresight in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strategic Mgmt. 7(2) (1995) 139-168.
14. A. Salo and K. Cuhls, Technology foresight -past and future, J. Forecasting 22(2-3) (2003) 79-82.
15. M. J. Liberatore, An extension of the analytical hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation, IEEE Trans. Eng. Mgmt. 34(1) (1987) 12-18.
16. T. Durand, Twelve lessons drawn from "Key Technologies 2005", the french technology foresight exercise, J. Forecasting 22(2-3) (2003) 161-177.
17. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980).
18. T. Braunschweig, W. Janssen and P. Rieder, Identifying criteria for public agricultural research decisions, Res. Policy 30(5) (2001) 725-734.
19. A. Salo, T. Gustafsson and R. Ramanathan, Multicriteria methods for technology foresight, J. Forecasting 22(2-3) (2003) 235-256.
20. R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976).
21. R. L. Keeney, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992).
22. S. Zahir, Making public policy decisions using a web-based multi-criteria, electoral system (MCES), Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decision Making 1(2) (2002) 293-309.
23. A. Salo and R. P. Hämäläinen, Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME) -Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 31(6) (2001) 533-545.
24. Z. Xu, An approach to group decision making based on incomplete linguistic preference relations, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decision Making 4(1) (2005) 153-160.
25. A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6) (1978) 429-444.
26. A. Salo, T. Gustafsson and P. Mild, Prospective evaluation of a cluster programme for Finnish forestry and forest industries, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 11(2) (2004) 139-154.
27. H. Nakayama, T. Tanino, K. Matsumoto, H. Matsuo, K. Inoue and Y. Sawaragi, Methodology for group decision support with and application to assessment of residential environment, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 9(9) (1979) 477-485.
28. A. Salo and A. Punkka, Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 163(2) (2005) 338-356.
29. M. Danielson, Handling imperfect user statements in real-life decision analysis, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decision Making 3(3) (2004) 513-534.
30. J. Liesiö, RICH Decisions - A Decision Support Software (Helsinki University of Technology, Finland, 2002), http:\\www.rich.hut.fi\.
31. A. Salo and J.-P. Salmenkaita, Embedded foresight in RTD programs, Int. J. Technol. Policy Manage. 2(2) (2002) 167-193.
32. J. Liesiö, P. Mild and A. Salo, Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection, to appear in Eur. J. Oper. Res.
33. M. Lindstedt, J. Liesiö and A. Salo, Participatory development of a strategic product portfolio in a telecommunication company, to appear in Int. J. Technol. Mgmt.
34. W. H. Cooper and R. B. Gallupe, Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming, Small Group Res. 29(2) (1978) 147-178.
35. J.-P. Salmenkaita and A. Salo, Emergent foresight processes: industrial activities in wireless communications, Technol. Forecasting Social Change 71(9) (2004) 897-912.