scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Futures studies published in 1985"


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, Drucker argues that an entrepreneurial society is needed in which innovation and entrepreneurship are normal, steady, and continuous, and proposes seven successful sources for innovative opportunity: (1) unexpected success, failure, or outside event; (2) incongruity between what is and what "ought" to be within an industry or market; (3) innovation based on a process need (supplying the missing link); (4) changes in industry structure or market structure; (5) demographics or population changes; (6) new scientific and non-scientific knowledge
Abstract: The emergence of an entrepreneurial econmy in the 1970s was the most significant and hopeful event in recent U.S. social and economic history. For Drucker, innovation and entrepreneurship are not a "flash of genius," but purposive tasks that can be organized as systematic, rational work fostered by management. Entrepreneurship is treated not as personality or intuition but behavior, concept, and theory. Entrepreneurship is not high-risk; rather, few so-called entrepreneurs have the method for what they do. The practice of innovation, the practice of entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial strategies compose innovation and entrepreneurship. Instead of pursuing "bright ideas," entrepreneurs should focus on the seven successful sources for innovative opportunity: (1) unexpected success, failure, or outside event; (2) incongruity between what is and what "ought" to be within an industry or market; (3) innovation based on a process need (supplying the missing link); (4) changes in industry structure or market structure; (5) demographics or population changes; (6) changes in perception, mood, and meaning; and (7) new scientific and non-scientific knowledge (requiring analysis of relevant factors, focus on strategic position, and entrepreneurial management). The practice of innovation is purposeful innovation resulting from analysis, system, and hard work. The principles of purposeful, systematic innovation are: (1) analyze opportunities, (2) be perceptive, (3) be simple and focused, (4) start small, and (5) aim at leadership. Principles of innovation are (1) innovation is work, (2) build on strengths, and (3) innovations have an effect in the economy and society. Entrepreneurs are not "risk-takers" but opportunity focused. The discipline called entrepreneurial management must develop a practical guide for innovation in (1) the existing business (policies to create a climate, practices, measures of innovative performance, and organizational practices), (2) the public-service institution (policies and need to innovate), and (3) the new venture (focus on market, financial foresight, early building of a top management team, role decisions by the founder, and outside advice). Entrepreneurship also requires four strategies, or practices and policies in the marketplace: (1) being "Fustest with the Mostest"; (2) "Hit Them Where They Ain't," or "entrepreneurial judo" (avoid the "not invented here" syndrome, don't "cream" a market, the fallacy of "quality," delusion of the "premium" price, and maximizing instead of optimizing; (3) finding an ecological niche (toll-gate, specialty skill, and specialty market strategies); and (4) changing utility, values, and economic characteristics (creating utility, pricing, adapting to customer's reality, and delivering true value to customer). In conclusion, Drucker argues that an entrepreneurial society is needed in which innovation and entrepreneurship are normal, steady, and continuous. What will not work is planning or over-reliance on high-technology. Social innovation is needed in the areas of redundant workers and abandoning outworn and obsolete social policies and institutions. Also needed are changes in tax and fiscal policies and government regulations, and individuals must undertake continuous learning and relearning. (TNM)

1,542 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 1985-Futures
TL;DR: In this article, the epistemological problems raised by futures studies and the role of the values and beliefs of both the producers and consumers of both sides of the argument are discussed.

22 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) as discussed by the authors is an independent, non-partisan, legislative mechanism for foresight in technological affairs, and describes potential future directions for the organization.

17 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a model for municipal futures studies that may contribute toward development of a municipal planning system that can adapt itself to different types of sudden change while still taking long-term welfare goals and resource conservation issues into consideration.

12 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The work of Irvine and Martin (IM) has provided a wealth of statistical data to be taken into account by future policy makers and historians as discussed by the authors, and the authors have failed to avoid the question: What is research in science for? That is a black hole into which their analysis is irretrievably sucked.
Abstract: The work of Irvine and Martin (IM) has provided a wealth of statistical data to be taken into account by future policy makers and historians. Those analysts will interpret the data in terms of the significance of what has been counted. This need for careful interpretation was sensitively recognized by IM in the methodological introduction to their paper on progress in radio astronomy (which I will refer to as RA).1 Even then they were to underestimate a fundamental problem, and its difficulties have been magnified as the sensitivity shown in the methodological introduction has been abandoned. The authors have failed to avoid the question: What is research in science for? That is a black hole into which their analysis is irretrievably sucked. First they impute unrealistic goals to science, and then they use indicators which do not indicate levels of achievement of those hypothetical goals. This Response focuses on their recent paper on 'Basic Research in the East and West' (EW).2 The object of that work is to evaluate the scientific outputs of high-energy accelerators in the Eastern bloc compared to those in the United States and Western Europe. But if one is to 'evaluate' science, or indeed anything else, performance must be matched to goals. When these are embedded in three such different cultural systems the issue is particularly salient. The objectives of science are explored by IM themselves in their recent book, Foresight in Science (FS).3 Here it is explained that the conventional differentiation of 'basic research', 'applied research' and 'experimental development' may be useful for statistical purposes, but not for science policy (FS,2). Within 'basic research' one can distinguish in terms of the patron's objectives between 'pure or curiosity oriented research' and 'strategic research' (FS, 4). The

3 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 1985-Society

2 citations


Journal ArticleDOI

1 citations