Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the research and literature through the development of the theme of competence foresight. In addition, the aim is to construct information pathways for the foresight mechanism, for the use of practitioners, to enable them to manage talent and competences with an anticipatory perspective.

The research strategy is theoretical research with interpretive concept analysis approach. The research compares, compiles and combines theories and perspectives of strategic human resource management and development, talent management, competence management and foresight.

The results combine the information pathways and elements of the pathways for the competence foresight mechanism. The main three pathways in the mechanism are the pathways for detecting the needed competences for strategy implementation, the pathways for detecting rapid changes and the loss of competences.

As talent management frameworks are organization specific, so are the mechanisms and information pathways for competence foresight. The results can be adjusted and developed to fit into other organizations.

The analysis and results provide the practitioners in human resources with new perspectives to use systematic foresight processes in talent management and development. The results can also be used for modelling the information pathways for the competence foresight mechanism in talent management software.

The research on human resources development and talent management does not deal with competence foresight. This paper addresses this deficiency and brings new, valuable perspectives of foresight and future studies for researchers and practitioners. This paper challenges further research on various aspects of competence foresight.

The purpose of this study was to determine in what ways the competence frameworks analyzed converge or diverge and whether they are similar enough to be considered equivalent.

This study is based on a comparative analysis of competence frameworks describing sustainability education and foresight and futures education.

This study finds that sustainability education and futures and foresight education differ in significant ways in terms of expected outcomes as described by competence frameworks. The two educational fields cannot be considered equivalent. Rather, we find that they are complementary.

This study is based on an analysis of competence frameworks that have been published in peer-reviewed publications. They do not necessarily reflect what is actually practiced in educational environments. Also, competence frameworks may be in circulation that have not been described in scholarly publications and are therefore not included in this study.

The results of this study can be helpful for further refining and developing both sustainability education and futures and foresight education by clarifying the different roles that they play in promoting the skills needed to address long-term challenges in uncertain futures.

The rapid rise in prominence of sustainability education, in particular, but also foresight and futures education, is indicative of current concerns about the future of our planet and the beings that inhabit it. There is a sense that a key role of education should be to contribute to a pursuit of positive futures for all. By clarifying how current educational practices address this need, this study contributes to the overall goal of education.

Sustainability education and foresight and futures education have been regarded as being at least similar enough that implementing one may preclude the necessity for the other. This study shows that there are significant differences between the two as they have been defined in published competence frameworks. In particular, it shows that sustainability education emphasizes the use of anticipatory intelligence for strategic planning, while foresight and futures education emphasize the generation of anticipatory intelligence. The two fields are found to be complementary in that they address different, but equally necessary, skills needed to address long-term challenges.

The foresight styles assessment (FSA) was regarded as an important empirical measure and dimension of a strategy level leader's dominant and back‐up styles of engaging with matters related to anticipating the future. The measure is also associated as a dimension of foresight as a leadership competence. This study seeks to determine the validity and reliability of the revised FSA as proposed by Gary.

A quantitative two‐step methodology was adopted as a pilot study preceding the main study in which a web‐based survey methodology was used. The sample consisted of 298 strategy level leaders. Data were analysed using advanced statistical analysis techniques including factor analysis and structural equation modelling.

The FSA's four factors; tester, adapter, framer and reactor, were confirmed but did not display uni‐dimensionality. Analytical results confirmed the validity and reliability of the measure, and the structural equation model illustrated good model fit. The reactor factor was determined to be a method factor and theoretical concerns could be raised regarding whether the reactor factor describes a foresight style. Future research of a summated three‐factor scale (excluding the reactor factor) is suggested and should include strategy‐level leaders, especially in more diverse populations, investigating further, the nomological validity and reliability of the scale.

Owing to the purposive non‐probability sampling technique the sample results are not generalisable. However, the statistical results are rigorous and significant in terms of determining the validity and reliability of the measure. Further research of a summated three‐factor (tester, framer, adapter) scale amongst a more diverse population is suggested.

While some notable studies have been conducted, futures studies research generally lacks validated and reliable quantitative measures related to the foresight construct. As suggested by Inayatullah, the importance of understanding the value free observations of the empirically observable is required to meaningfully conduct deeper analysis of social issues. The findings of this research has implications in the study of foresight by providing empirical grounds for further exploratory research, and providing rigorous evidence supporting the use of the foresight styles assessment especially as a three‐factor summated scale. Use of the scale is not limited to foresight studies, indeed it can and has been applied to broader leadership cognition and strategic management studies yet to be reported.

Considering that foresight is regarded as an innate human characteristic and the need for social foresight may never have been higher, understanding a basis of measuring the construct may have significant implications in terms of further social science research and social foresight development.

In terms of measuring a broader construct of foresight competence, the rigorous validation of a measure to enable further interpretive, exploratory and critical research is important. To the author's knowledge, using structural equation modelling techniques in futures studies is very rare if at all. The study further contributes to the development of a rigorous measure that may facilitate significant foresight/futures studies/leadership and management future research.

The purpose of the study is to investigate the role of the strategy tripod premises, mediated by future foresight and its effect on merger effectiveness in the higher education industry.

A quantitative survey method was implemented, with the data provided by senior managers of 14 universities that went through a merger from the years 2013–2016. The proposed model was tested using partial least squares (PLS) of structural equation modeling (SEM).

The results indicate that government support, competitive intensity and knowledge creation capability relate positivity to merger effectiveness, and these relationships are mediated by future foresight competence.

The study provides a better understanding of merger effectiveness in the higher education industry by identifying the role of future foresight competence in the application of strategy tripod and its contribution on merger effectiveness. Results indicate that future foresight competence contributes to the merger effectiveness and enables the effective implementation of the strategy tripod dimensions in higher education mergers.

This article aims to advance the state of the art in constructing transformative scenarios by building upon Boudon’s social theory and to reflect its application to research and innovation futures.

The scenarios are based upon a particular multi-level perspective for research and innovation. They are developed around two time horizons: an explorative scenario stage by 2020 (exploring tensions) and a transformative scenario stage by 2030 (tracing the mechanisms of transformation).

Five scenarios provide comprehensive images of research and innovation regimes and practices, how research and innovation is embedded in society by 2030, and what plausible pathways of evolution toward the transformation of our research and innovation landscape may look like.

The methodology “from explorative to transformative scenarios” provides a meaningful, complementary perspective of standard scenario methodology rather than replacing it.

Foresight practitioners can use the methodology to advance the construction of transformative scenarios. The approach from “explorative to transformative scenarios” is best suited when policy measures are to be addressed.

There has been little guidance on how to construct transformative scenarios. Insights from social theory are leveraged to develop a more consolidated approach. The approach of two time horizons, encompassing an explorative and a transformative stage, is novel and applied to research and innovation futures.

Determining the strategic thrust of the firm, it may be argued, is the principal task of top management. This task is aided by recent theories of business and marketing strategy, including the normative imperatives based on industry factors, resource factors, competences, market orientation, and relationship marketing. Choosing wisely from among the various theories of strategy requires an accurate understanding of the contexts of competition. This article argues that resource‐advantage theory, an evolutionary, disequilibrium‐provoking process theory of competition, provides that understanding. That is, resource‐advantage theory grounds theories of business and marketing strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to give an up-to-date assessment of key topics and methods discussed in the current literature on responsible entrepreneurship. In the past years, sustainable development itself has become a more popular and important topic in the academic literature and hence the field of sustainable entrepreneurship has become a greater topic of interest and opportunity for solution. Therefore, a systematic literature review is conducted to assess new contributions to the field and its potential for the future of sustainable development, with a focus on responsible innovation.

Systematic, evidence-informed literature review following Tranfield et al. (2003).

Based on a conceptual literature review, five streams of research that responsible entrepreneurs distinguish from purely for-profit entrepreneurs are identified and discussed: walking the line between profit creation and value creation for society; business models of responsible entrepreneurs; their role in transforming society; getting ready to innovate responsibly; and the role of market incentives to foster sustainable business practices.

The structured literature review allows to identify future research paths. In detail, ideas as regards the management of upcoming tensions when trying to combine profit creation and value creation for society, and finally, the way innovation processes need to be rethought when innovating responsibly are discussed and outlined.

An issue of managing a business (unit) as a whole successfully is perceived to belong to the fundamental issues within strategic management. This paper proposes that a business unit can be managed successfully in short and longer term in its focal contexts as a set of three recursive, competence-based, and process-based systems. Many elements of Stafford Beer's (1985) viable system model along the key competence-based theoretical bases are applied to this system design task. The outcome is an ideal, recursive template for advancing competence-based business management (CBBM) and its conceptual modeling. It is assumed that it is possible to design a business unit as a viable system that is capable of sustaining a separate existence at only three levels of hierarchy, as part of single or multi-business firms. Business-process models and their redesign processes are chosen as the 2nd-order, focal system which produces a business unit's competitiveness and solves longitudinal CBBM problems. One level of recursion down includes a unit's value creating, capturing, releveraging, and respective processes that enable to solve cross-sectional problems. One level of recursion up includes a unit's existential foresights and their crafting processes that solve existential problems. Recursivity is designed inside each system in terms of three kinds of subsystems for (a) primary value releveraging, process-model redesign, and business-foresight crafting, (b) the management of varieties in releveraging, modeling, and foreseeing, and (c) the monitoring and probing of all three systems. Systemic competences are incorporated inside respective systems. Such competences possess three flexibilities of absorption, attenuation, and amplification. At each level of recursion, a competence-based process is a unit of conceptual modeling of CBBM. A business unit is defined as a set of its purposeful processes. No thing or one is left outside them. Viability is ensured by real-time interaction and the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-order feedback loops between three systems. Overall, the suggested, recursive, 3-system template is intended to serve future, compatible modeling efforts among interested, pioneering firms, professional CBBM modelers, scholars, and alike. Its novelty is produced by choosing and designing the CBBM modeling as the 2nd-order system-in-focus with its two recursions, by designing and using systemic, competence-based processes as the units of conceptualization, and by choosing and drawing the figures to illustrate the 3-system template in the ways that allow also business managers comprehend and apply the suggested template in practice.

This article provides basic conceptions and visions of the regional foresight system in Finland. It includes brief information concerning foresight activities and an up‐dated description of the current regional foresight system in Finland. In the 1990s there has been a “boom” of extensive foresight and futures studies. Among the most important development projects has been the regional foresight project of Employment and Economic Development Centres (TE‐Centre). This article describes how regional foresight activities have been developed in Finland and what kind of challenges there are in the field of the Finnish regional foresight.

The aim of this paper is to advance applied theoretical knowledge on international business (IB) ideation by designing the managing of such ideation as three recursive, multi-competence-enabled systems.

The core principles of Beer’s (1985) Viable System Model are adopted for this system design task. The Viable System Model consists of five interacting sub-systems that can support a viable IB unit.

The contribution of this design of the three recursive, multi-competence-enabled systems will be three novel pieces of the applied theoretical knowledge about recursivity and competences that advance the management of an IB unit as a whole and in particular that of IB ideation.

For future research, I initially propose that the IB ideation (unit) is being managed the more successfully within its focal contexts, the more extensively the IB ideation is designed as a set of three recursive systems enabled by respective multi-competences. Moreover, the 3-system design may serve as the frame of reference for those compatible theorization initiatives vis-à-vis viable IB ideation management that interested competence-based management scholars will conduct in the future.

I put forth the three templates (coupled with Functions 2–3) to facilitate the enhancement of the IB ideation practices among leading, innovative firms and especially by the pioneering management of IB (ideation) units.