ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In this article we want to give our answer to the question about if and how corporate foresight can increase the likelihood that we move toward sustainability – both on a company and a societal level. We propose a framework that links barriers to sustainability with corporate foresight methods that can be used to overcome these barriers and support the transition toward a more sustainable future.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Global Compact International Yearbook 2012 Global Compact International Yearbook 2012184 185
Agenda
By Prof. Dr. René Rohrbeck and Pernille Kallehave
In this article we want to give our answer to the question about if and how corporate
foresight can increase the likelihood that we move toward sustainability – both on a
company and a societal level. Before entering into the discussion of what corporate foresight
can do, let us highlight some of our observations on what is holding us back from engaging
in sustainability actions, and thus creating sustainability of the necessary trajectory, scale,
and velocity to actually meet the societal challenges.
ISO 26000Agenda Corporate Foresight
From a humanistic point of view, it seems surprising that
we continue behaving – individually and collectively – in
ways that will endanger the life of future generations. But the
world is slowly moving in the right direction, supported by
a broad group of stakeholders. In its latest report, the United
Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sus-
tainability seems to shift its focus from governmental initia-
tives toward action by companies and individuals. Overall,
the expectation seems to be that while governments nd it
difcult to commit to new sustainable measures, companies
and individuals could lead the way toward a resilient planet
(United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global
Sustainability, 2012).
Companies’ ambivalent role toward sustainability
In a recent study, KPMG argues that rms will need to work
harder to become greener in order to prepare for rising en-
vironmental cost. However, many rms still nd it difcult
to engage in meaningful and lasting sustainability programs.
When asked about the reason, some suggest that many rms
follow the logic put forward by Milton Friedman that “the
social responsibility of business is to increase its prots.” Using
that credo, rms it is suggested will only nd interest
in sustainability if an impact on prot can be expected. Many
sustainability innovations, however, have a mid- or long-term
payback horizon. Using traditional management metrics –
such as calculating the return on investment, on the basis of
discounted cash ows would force executives to make nega-
tive investment decisions. Firms are also bound by dominant
mental models, basic assumptions that have been developed
in the past, as well as by the current business environment.
Firms nd it difcult to perceive and act upon new trends and
changes regarding developing trajectories.
Another issue is the systemic nature of many sustainability
innovations. Mark Johnson and Josh Suskewicz argue in a
Harvard Business Review article that a clean-tech economy
requires “shifting from developing individual technologies to
creating whole new [value creation] systems.” Such shifts have
happened in the past, for example the shift from candles to
electricity as the dominant form of lighting. Such a shift makes
old value networks (candle producers, candle-holder manufac-
turer, candle vendors, etc.) obsolete and new value networks
need to be formed (energy producers, wire manufacturers,
light bulb manufacturers, etc.). Thus, such shifts only come
about when multiple actors – often governments as well as
rms, consumers, and investors – pull in the same direction
and work toward a common goal.
To ensure innovation toward sustainability, three things are
needed: (1) decision-making tools that identify future value
networks / systems; (2) common visions that identify the value-
creation potential to mobilize sufcient resources; and (3) frame-
works in which the actors can organize and build condence
that the new value network will be created.
There is, however, a much less debated barrier, which is also
much more operational and much easier to overcome, in theory.
That is the lack of joint planning and, thus, the lack of shared
understanding about what actions need to be taken and in
which sequence the different actors need to take them. This
is a result of the ways that rms organize. They are complex,
with responsibility being shared across many hierarchical levels
and often distributed across regions and/or product categories.
In addition, they are structured to ensure efcient operations
in the current business logic, not in a new (for example, more
sustainable) way. Both the complexity and the focus on current
business methods create a powerful inertia that is difcult to
THE ROLE OF CORPORATE
FORESIGHT IN PROMOTING
SUSTAINABILITY
Global Compact International Yearbook 2012 Global Compact International Yearbook 2012186 187
Agenda ISO 26000Agenda Corporate Foresight
For example, through scenario planning, Shell identied in
the 1970s that, in a possible future scenario, the oil-producing
countries could jointly decide to reduce the production capacity
to exercise political pressure and increase the oil price. This
resulted in Shell’s anticipation of the oil crisis that has hit its
competitors and the world at large, taking them by surprise.
Unfortunately, the management systems of rms reinforce
dominant mental models and emphasize shared assumptions,
making it much more difcult to think about other possible
trajectories. Thus, corporate planning will always tend to
strengthen the current path and limit the strategic agility of
rms. In that respect, it is important to move from individual
trend- and emerging-issue analysis to joint exercises with
other companies, for example those from other industries or
that have other positions in the value network so as to avoid
competitive conicts.
To break away from such path-dependency, rms are starting
to use integrated corporate foresight approaches. These often
start with the identication of inuencing factors that might be
trend-like (with a high likelihood of continuity along its current
trajectory) or uncertain (where the future trajectory cannot be
predicted at all). The inuencing factors are used as the basis
for the development of scenarios that are assessed concerning
their impact on the rm’s current strategies.
In addition, the scenarios can be used for strategic planning.
For this purpose, the scenarios are classied into two categories:
favorable (where the rm can maintain its competitiveness)
and unfavorable (where the rm would lose ground against
its competitors). After analyzing the scenarios in depth, the
planning can commence from the future toward the present.
This technique, known as backcasting, consist of planning
actions that need to be taken – starting from the future and
working step-by-step to present time. These steps are dened
to move toward the favorable scenarios and away from the
unfavorable ones.
This approach builds on a high level of participation from the
various hierarchical levels as well as different business units
to create a shared future vision. To create the understanding
of what should be done and how to act, the planning is further
detailed using roadmapping, which takes into account the spe-
cic perspective of each unit. The participation is essential to
ensure the creation of common knowledge about the planned
actions, and thus reduces the likelihood of adverse behavior
from involved actors.
The wide scope of possible futures identied by scenario analysis
motivates rms to take a more long-term view. It enables top
management to shift its discussion from “What should we do
now?” toward “Who are we and who do we want to be in the
future?” Judging from a recent study by Stadler, the focus on
core values and having a clear vision about the role of the rm
increases its life expectancy. In conclusion, it can be said that
corporate foresight provides rms with:
the possibility to systematically challenge dominant mental
models and basic assumptions;
means to reduce ignorance toward external change;
methods to recognize the systematic nature of new market
development;
an interpretation and response system;
a systematic approach to discover alternative strategic options
and create shared visions;
means to counterbalance inertia induced by the management
systems;
tools to break away from path-dependency;
a method to create a sustainable organizational design for
the rm of the future.
Corporate foresight to reach global sustainability goals
When talking about global sustainability questions, we know
that we need to get many actors and stakeholders involved.
These have complex and often divergent objectives. However,
the same is true for most large rms, which are faced with
conicting goals of stakeholders and shareholders, different
regulatory frameworks in the countries in which they oper-
ate, as well as long-term contracts with buyers and suppliers.
To move such complex systems from one state into another
requires, in both cases, visions that are shared and strong
enough to mobilize the required resources.
To create strong visions, scenario analysis should be the tool
of choice. The challenge here is to ensure a sufcient level of
participation by the individuals who have the required decision-
making powers to commit their organizations to the common
vision. In that respect, the World Economic Forum is using a
very successful, lightweight version of scenario analysis that
can be run as a workshop. Inuencing factors are described
on cards, whereby stable trends are represented by one card
and uncertain developments by multiple cards, and both of-
fer possible trajectories. Sub-groups select cards and create
scenarios. All generated scenarios are presented and discussed
by the whole group.
For the transition to planning, we have had good experiences in
our own projects with collaborative business modeling. In one
project, we moderated a group composed of energy producers,
energy vendors, ICT service, and ICT manufacturer rms. We
organized a series of three workshops, which started with the
identication of business model elements and ended with a
set of viable business models. The business modeling approach
produces more detailed understanding of future value-creation
and value-capture systems. This allows for identifying the roles
that are needed in the future value network and planning of
overcome and systematically prevents planning of alternative
trajectories
.
Thus, enabling corporate sustainability will also require review-
ing organizational design to a certain extent. This includes
adapting reward and recognition systems, human resource
management, and organizational structures. In addition, the
usage of information and communication systems can increase
participation in strategy formation and help track the imple-
mentation of the strategy.
The three elements of change
Michel Godet and Philippe Durance turn to the Greek philoso-
phers to make their point: To engage rms – and indeed the
society – into making change, the three elements of the Greek
triangle are needed (Godet and Durance, 2011):
Logos: thought, rationality, discourse
Epithumia: desire in all its noble and not-so-noble aspects
Ergo: action or realization
We use Figure 1 to illustrate how these three elements guide cor-
porate foresight in overcoming the barriers to a sustainable future.
What corporate foresight can do for rms
Firms are employing corporate foresight for different purposes
that reach from identifying emerging issues to enhancing
strategic decision-making. Corporate foresight is built on the
principles that:
we cannot predict the future, but we can explore possible
futures;
the future is determined by many inuencing factors, includ-
ing own action;
the generation of insight into the future needs to be integrated
with the conceptualizing and planning of responses;
exploring the future calls for tools that go beyond linear
reasoning toward systemic observations and modeling;
approaches should be participative and challenge dominant
mental models and basic assumptions.
However, in many firms the full potential of corporate
foresight remains unexplored. The majority of rms use
foresight techniques as early warning systems for emerging
issues, rather than as platforms to facilitate strategic con-
versations, create common visions, and plan jointly for how
to reach them. This is where corporate foresight methods
work best, such as scenario analysis, backcasting, and road-
mapping.
Lack of perception of long-term
trajectories of change
Lack of decision-making tools that
integrate systemic effects
Lack of shared understanding what ac-
tions need to taken
Lackof confidence that new value
networks will be created
Lack of visions to mobilize needes
resources
Logos
Thought, rationality, discourse
Ergo
Action, realization
Epithumia
Desire in all its noble and not so
noble causes
Joint trend and emerging
issues analysis
Business modeling to identify future
value creation networks
Backcasting and Roadmapping for
planning and controlling progress
Collaborative Business modeling to
identify value creation logic
Scenario to create common shared
future outlook
Barriers Creating change Corporate Foresight
THE GREEK TRIANGLE GUIDES CORPORATE FORESIGHT AND HELPS TO
OVERCOME THE BARRIERS TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Figure 1
Global Compact International Yearbook 2012 Global Compact International Yearbook 2012188 189
STRATEGIC FORESIGHT:
EFFECTIVE DECISION-
SUPPORT SYSTEMS
More than ever, strategic decision-makers are expected to develop
sustainable long-term strategies for their public or private
organizations. Strategic foresight systems support decision-makers
in systematically improving the quality of their future assumptions,
strategic decisions, and plans. This article summarizes the most
important mechanisms of support, presents three distinctive types of
foresight systems and widely used methods, and explains how strategic
foresight is anchored in actual day-to-day practice.
Agenda Corporate Foresight
Dr. René Rohrbeck is
Associate Professor for
Strategy, Department of
Business Administration,
Business and Social
Science, Aarhus University.
Pernille Kallehave is
Head of Development
and Sustainability, MA
(Law), Interdisciplinary
Center for Organizational
Architecture (ICOA),
Business and Social
Science, Aarhus University.
actions to create the future market. The description of the value
creation is also a rst strong indicator for the attractiveness of
the market, and thus creates the motivation necessary to ensure
a sufcient commitment by the participating organizations.
In this exercise, we also discovered that the idea of including
sustainability goals into the business model was not met with
any resistance from the participating rms; in fact the rms were
glad to integrate societal impact into the overall business model
design. Many rms have indeed embraced the idea of creating
societal and nancial prot simultaneously, and should thus
not be overlooked as partners in creating sustainable solutions
for a resilient planet. To nalize the planning, roadmapping
is a good tool because it also recognizes the interdependence
of, for example, regulatory actions from governments and ac-
tions from rms, and thus builds on the same systemic logic
as scenarios.
We hope that this article is successful in highlighting some
merits of corporate foresight methods and approaches, and
that it will thereby result in increased usage for bringing
about visions, concepts, and plans for venturing together on
the journey toward greater sustainability.
Read the full article with additional information on:
foresight.csr-manager.org
... However some authors, such as Hart (1995), argue that generic processes, having been developed during an era of resource abundance, fail to adequately highlight this particular strategic threat. Furthermore, authors such as Rohrbeck and Kallehave (2012) and Senge et al. (2008), argue that to prompt the adoption of alternative business models, decision makers require more foresight and a systems thinking perspective to raise their awareness of these long-term systematic strategic threats. ...
... While the majority of firms use foresight as an early warning system for emerging issues (Carleton et al. 2013), there are calls for research to investigate the potential foresight can play in enabling decision makers to recognise unsustainable behaviour, and adopt more sustainable business models (Rohrbeck & Kallehave 2012). ...
... Some argue that more research should explore how the characteristics of foresight approaches could help firms overcome the challenge presented by sustainability (Destatte 2010;Rohrbeck & Kallehave 2012). In a study examining long lasting firms, Stadler (2011) found that having a clear vision setting out the role of the firm was one of the characteristics of firms with long 'life expectancies'. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This research is motivated by the challenge facing manufacturing firms from global resource constraints. As major commodities become scarce, and their prices rise and become more volatile, there is consensus that manufacturing firms need to address non-labour resource productivity and adopt alternative business models that are less reliant on the linear consumption of resources. For firms make this transition, a firm’s senior decision makers must be aware of the long-term strategic threat posed by resource constraints during the strategy process. The process should thus raise decision makers’ awareness and prompt a re-evaluation of the firm’s strategy and business model. The environmental scanning activity is the opportunity for threats in the external environment to be identified within most strategy processes. However some authors, such as Hart (1995), argue that generic processes, having been developed during an era of resource abundance, fail to adequately highlight this particular strategic threat. Furthermore, authors such as Rohrbeck and Kallehave (2012) and Senge et al. (2008), argue that to prompt the adoption of alternative business models, decision makers require more foresight and a systems thinking perspective to raise their awareness of these long-term systematic strategic threats. This research investigates these claims by first examining how a generic strategy process prompts decision makers to identify strategic threats such as resource constraints in the external environment. Next the research explores how strategic awareness could be improved with more foresight and systems thinking. The research examines a working example of a generic strategy process, and analyses the outputs of the environmental scanning process to assess decision makers’ strategic awareness. A novel methodology is devised to measure strategic awareness empirically, and the findings strengthen existing arguments that suggest decision makers’ awareness tends to be biased towards the short-term, and focussed on events rather than long-term trends. To address these limitations, the research successfully demonstrates that strategic awareness can be improved in a time-efficient manner, by introducing foresight approaches and a systems thinking perspective into the environmental scanning activity of a generic strategic process. This research makes both theoretical and practical contributions. Strategic awareness is observed to vary along three dimensions, and a novel methodology is used to quantify awareness along these dimensions and provide an empirical contribution to the natural-resource-based-view of the firm literature. In addition, the successful trials of changes to the environmental scanning activity provide a practical contribution by demonstrating how to operationalise the inclusion of foresight and a systems thinking perspective within a strategy process. While the conclusions of this research are based on analysis of data from one strategy process, since this process is a working example of the generic strategy process described in strategy process literature, the conclusions are more widely generalizable. The key implication of the research is to confirm that strategic awareness, and thereby strategic decision making, can be improved even within a time-constrained strategy workshop. Thus the improved strategy process can prompt decision makers in other industries to recognise the need for alternative business models, and ensure their firm’s future viability within a resource constrained future.
... The management of selection, training, retraining and personnel development, the formation and enrichment of technologies for managing professional and career development are naturally part of a dynamically and steadily developing enterprise. Forecasting the development of the enterprise (foresight) as a leading aspect includes a general assessment of the professional and career potential of the organization's employees, as well as the dynamic abilities of the organization's manager (his ability and willingness to diversify activities, training and retraining, etc.) (Arpentieva, 2017;Cordes- Berszinn, 2013;Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Heger, and Rohrbeck, 2012;Højland, & Rohrbeck, 2018;Lehr, Lorenz, Willert, and Rohrbeck, 2017;Rohrbeck, 2010;Rohrbeck, 2012;Rohrbeck, and Kallehave, 2012;Rohrbeck, and Kum, 2018;Teece, 2007;Winter, 2003). ...
... Analysis of foresight competence as a component of dynamic capabilities (competences) of the educational enterprises / managers of educational enterprises shows their leading role in the implementation of other dynamic capabilities. Its shows the fact that foresight educational enterprises and industries is having a transformative impact on the development of the system, helping to transform and not just to predict the development of the industry or enterprise (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Heger, and Rohrbeck, 2012;Højland, & Rohrbeck, 2018;Lehr, Lorenz, Willert, and Rohrbeck, 2017;Rohrbeck, 2010;Rohrbeck, 2012;Rohrbeck, and Kallehave, 2012;Rohrbeck, and Kum, 2018;Teece, 2007;Winter, 2003). Foresight involves the use and transformation meta-technology ("routines") of enterprise and innovation in the field of production and relations of production. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper focuses on the dynamic capabilities theory and foresight theory in whole to the problem of the human capital in education and its management. The main channel for building up dynamic abilities and foresight competencies of educational enterprises and specialists, as well as the focus of foresight research in modern science and management practice is working with human resources, with the human capital of firms, communities, and countries. This work also includes work with social and cultural capital, focused on improving the culture of relationships in communities, including the culture of the state, society and business. The orientation of the world social development to increase the innovation component in the economic, social and spiritual spheres of society and in its education, led to the recognition of human capital as a leading and decisive factor in the socio-economic development of systems of various scales and levels. Scientists notes that in modern conditions of globalization of markets and transnationalization of economic relations, as well as a significant level of intellectualization of modern business processes, human capital and education in business and in other spheres is a decisive factor in the compe-titiveness of national economy on the different levels. This moment is especially noticeable in the studies of the dynamic abilities of educational enterprises and the management of educational enterprises. This moment is also especially noticeable in foresight studies and other reconstructions of the past, present and future development of organizations. Dynamic capabilities are required if the firm is to sustain itself as markets and technologies change, although some firms will be stronger than others in performing some or all of these tasks. Foresight is a system of methods of transformation of priorities in the sphere of economy and production, social and cultural development, and in education. Human resource management in education is an important part of the problem of the dynamic abilities of educational enterprises. The management of selection, training, retraining and personnel development, the formation and enrichment of technologies for managing professional and career development are naturally part of a dynamically and steadily developing enterprise. Foresight of the development of the educational enterprise as a leading aspect includes a general assessment of the professional and career potential of the organization’s employees, as well as the dynamic abilities of the organization’s manager (his ability and willingness to diversify activities, training and retraining, etc.) and other specialists. The purpose of the study – analysis of foresight competence as a component of dynamic capabilities (competences) of the educational enterprises and specialists of educational enterprises in context of the human capital problems. Foresight involves the use and transformation meta-technology ("routines") of enterprise and innovation in the field of production and relations of production. It is aimed at the allocation and use of markers of change – weak and strong signals of future and probable changes. Active and accurate identification of these markers changes in education, including application and modification of routine or meta-technology of enterprise management, not only allows to predict "unpredictable", but also to intervene in the process flow, correcting them with the least expenditure of forces, material, mental and spiritual resources. In addition, it allows you to influence the markets themselves and the surrounding enterprise reality in general. Thanks to the foresight competence and ability, the specialist in education and his company productively adapt to changes in environment (market and society), but also participate in changing it.
... Solving this requires that decision-makers, to which we also refer to as strategists, identify superior courses of action by altering mental models, creating new shared and powerful representations (Gavetti & Menon, 2016). We expected that this can be supported by methods and approaches of strategic foresight (Rohrbeck & Kallehave, 2012) like scenario planning that enables reducing cognitive distance that can be the consequence of lack of previous knowledge; revising the taken for granted previous assumption, deepening the awareness and enhancing the attentiveness to the dynamic environment and alternative choices (Patel, 2016). Revised assumptions and updated anticipation is comparable to adjusting the cognitive scripts, i.e. logical and consistent chain of actions expected by individuals. ...
Article
Full-text available
Innovative technologies often alter established value chains and make traditional strategic planning methods inadequate. In this paper, we present the use of scenario-based business modelling to explore the market for the fifth generation mobile communication networks (5G). We discuss four scenarios that have been developed in a collaborative effort among different actors in the market. We then describe the approach to build business models and discuss lessons learned and benefits from the novel approach. This approach complements traditional techniques through providing a powerful platform to integrate multi-dimensional change, from technology, regulation, value-chain dynamics, and value proposition evolution. We further conclude that the approach is particularly valuable in environments that are characterized by a high level of uncertainty and complexity.
... Many expect that in the future more of these networked innovation activities will take place (Berg, Pihlajamaa, Poskela, & Smedlund, 2006). To succeed, such networks need to create a shared vision with powerful expectations allowing to mobilize sufficient resources (McDowall & Eames, 2006;Rohrbeck & Kallehave, 2012). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
It has been suggested that business model innovation (BMI) is crucial for incumbent firms to drive and master sustainability transitions. Yet there is not much knowledge about how business models (BMs) and sustainability transitions interrelate and how incumbents (can) innovate BMs in a transition context. BM research typically takes a firm-centric perspective, disregards the mutual influence between firms and the socio-economic system they are embedded in, and fails to address the particularities of BMI in a transition context. To address these shortcomings, I embark on this cumulative dissertation by identifying BM research directions which are particularly relevant in a transition context. The five dissertation papers follow these directions, are theoretically informed by transition and strategic cognition theory and empirically situated in the German energy industry. Methodologically, this dissertation includes conceptual papers, action research and longitudinal case studies. Overall, I find that the BM concept is well suited to link firms and the wider system because it is firm-centric yet context-oriented. To drive and master sustainability transitions, incumbents need to emphasize BMI with a focus on inter-organizational collaboration and support cognitive change within and across organizational boundaries. In this dissertation, insights from the transition and BM literatures are conceptually integrated and a method for collaborative BM design is developed, applied and evaluated. Furthermore, BM implementation is portrayed as a recursive process of cognitive change and alignment at and across organizational levels, and ensuing action. This dissertation primarily contributes to BM research; however, individual papers offer secondary contributions to the transition and strategic cognition literatures.
... Michel Godet and Philippe Durance advocated the need to enact the Greek triangle consisting of Logos (thought, rationality, discourse), Epithumia (desire in all its noble and not-so-noble aspects), and Ergo (action or realization) to drive innovation and change [104]. Foresight methods and approaches can be vital in this quest, in particular when it comes to sustainability innovations [105]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The goal of this introductory article to the Special Issue on Corporate Foresight is to provide an overview of the state of the art, major challenges and to identify development trajectories. We define corporate foresight as a practice that permits an organization to lay the foundation for a future competitive advantage. Historically we distinguish and discuss four main phases 1) birth of the field (1950s), 2) the age of scenarios (1960s-1970s), 3) professionalization (1980s-1990s), and 4) organizational integration (2000- ). A systematic literature search revealed 102 articles on foresight, 29 of them on corporate foresight. Based on these articles and those in this Special Issue, we identify four main themes. Two more mature themes, namely ‘organizing corporate foresight’, and ‘individual and collective cognition’, and two emerging themes ‘corporate foresight in networked organizations’, and ‘quantifying value contributions’. In the conclusion we make a plea for establishing corporate foresight as a separate research stream that can adopt various theoretical foundations from a number of general management research traditions. To help the field move forward we identify three areas in which corporate foresight research can build on theoretical notions in general management, and can contribute to such on-going debates.
... This insinuates that information and intelligence should be both actionable and directional in the sense that the actions needed should be identifiable, with clear aims and objectives. Further, these should deliver additional foresight as the key to sustainability that informs subsequent cycles (Rohrbeck and Kallehave, 2012). ...
Article
The enterprise excellence and modern sustainability movements have developed along near parallel timelines. Skilled use of enterprise excellence systems has been documented to significantly boost performance across an array of key domains, including financial, human capital, operations and supply chain, and other areas. Notably absent are social and environmental performance, with their absence attributable to the inadequate emphasis on enterprise excellence of these domains. Similarly, although the triple bottom line is core to the sustainability movement, many adherents of sustainability approach its people and planet domains with ardor, yet virtually neglect its profit domain. A simple model of sustainable enterprise excellence and accompanying maturity assessment regimen are introduced and advanced as a means of merging these movements to drive an equity, ecology and economy triple top line strategy to produce triple bottom line people, planet and profit performance with innovation and organizational design playing pivotal roles in both the model and its assessment. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
... This insinuates that information and intelligence should be both actionable and directional in the sense that the actions needed should be identifiable, with clear aims and objectives. Further, these should deliver additional foresight as the key to sustainability that informs subsequent cycles (Rohrbeck and Kallehave, 2012). ...
... Many expect that in the future more of these networked innovation activities will take place (Berg, Pihlajamaa, Poskela, & Smedlund, 2006). To succeed, such networks need to create a shared vision with powerful expectations that will allow mobilizing sufficient resources (McDowall & Eames, 2006; Rohrbeck & Kallehave, 2012). To envision future value chains, plan joint R&D efforts, forecast demand and willingness to pay, a common platform for discussion among the actors is needed (Probert, Farrukh, Gregory, & Robinson, 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sustainability innovations are characterized by a systemic nature and require that multiple organizations act in an orchestrated fashion. To jointly identify opportunities and plan sustainability innovations, new methods and approaches are needed. In this article we describe a case study where 8 firms have collaborated to envision and create new business models in the energy industry. After describing this collaborative business modelling (CBM) approach, we discuss its strengths and limitations and compare it to two alternative methods of strategy and innovation planning: scenario technique and roadmapping. We find that CBM creates a powerful platform for (1) jointly identifying economic and societal value, (2) defining value creation/value capture systems, and (3) planning of complex and uncertain future markets.
Chapter
Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen zeichnen sich häufig durch einen systemischen Charakter aus, so dass deren Entwicklung ein koordiniertes Vorgehen mehrerer Akteure erfordert. Um gemeinsam Chancen für systemische Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen zu erkennen, sie zu planen und umzusetzen, werden neue kooperative Methoden und Ansätze benötigt. Insbesondere für die Entwicklung der Energiewirtschaft hin zu einer nachhaltigen Energieversorgung sind systemische Innovationen von großer Bedeutung. Die Integration eines schnell wachsenden Anteils erneuerbarer Energien und dezentraler Erzeugungsanlagen stellt Energieversorgungsunternehmen (EVU) vor Herausforderungen, die sie nicht alleine lösen können. Moderne Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT) werden zur effizienten Steuerung verteilter Erzeugungsanlagen und Verbraucher und zur Koordinierung zahlreicher Marktakteure benötigt. Die Entwicklung intelligenter Energiesysteme („Smart Energy“) eröffnet aber auch Chancen für die Erweiterung der Geschäftstätigkeit von EVU. Hierzu werden neue Geschäftsmodelle benötigt. In diesem Beitrag stellen wir unseren Ansatz der kooperativen Geschäftsmodellentwicklung (KGE) vor. Wir wenden die KGE in einer Fallstudie an, bei der acht Unternehmen kooperiert haben, um neue Geschäftsmodelle für die Energiewirtschaft zu entwickeln. Nach der Darstellung unseres Ansatzes diskutieren wir seine Stärken und Limitationen und vergleichen ihn mit zwei alternativen Methoden der Strategie- und Innovationsplanung, der Szenariotechnik und dem Roadmapping. Es zeigt sich, dass die KGE gut geeignet ist um 1. potentiellen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Nutzen zu identifizieren, 2. kooperative Wertschöpfungsarchitekturen zu entwickeln, 3. in komplexen und unsicheren Märkten zu planen und 4. die Umsetzung neuer Geschäftsmodelle vorzubereiten.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.