Accepted Manuscript

Title: Foresight and Technology Assessment for the Austrian

Parliament — Finding new ways of debating the future of
Industry 4.0

Authors: K. Matthias Weber, Niklas Gudowsky, Georg

Aichholzer

PII: S0016-3287(17)30352-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.018
Reference: JFTR 2335

To appear in:

Received date: 15-9-2017

Revised date: 3-5-2018
Accepted date: 24-6-2018

Please cite this article as: Weber KM, Gudowsky N, Aichholzer G,

Foresight and Technology Assessment for the Austrian Parliament —
Finding new ways of debating the future of Industry 4.0, Futures (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.018

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
FUTURES - Special Issue of Futures on Socio-Technical Futures and the Governance of Innovation
Processes

Foresight and Technology Assessment for the Austrian

Parliament — Finding new ways of debating the future
of Industry 4.0

T
K. Matthias Webera, Niklas Gudowskyb, Georg Aichholzerb

IP
a
Corresponding Author, Austrian Institute of Technology, Center for Innovation Systems and Policy,

R
Giefinggasse 4, 1210 Vienna (Austria), matthias.weber@ait.ac.at

SC
b
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Technology Assessment, Apostelgasse 23, 1030 Vienna
(Austria), niklas.gudowsky@oeaw.ac.at ; georg.aichholzer@oeaw.ac.at

U
N
Highlights

 The Austrian Parliament is exploring and piloting the possibility of establishing a

A
parliamentary foresight and technology assessment function
M

 The area of Industry 4.0 is an outstanding example of an emerging technology that is likely to
entail major socio-economic challenges, and thus also an area in need of informed
parliamentary and public debate
ED

 The process model tested in the case of Industry 4.0 has shown both the potential of
enhanced future-oriented dialogue and the limitations in terms of time and resources that
parliamentary work allows to dedicate to this task
PT

Abstract.
E

The widespread use of information and communication technologies to interconnect manufacturing

CC

systems at the shop floor level and along the value chain, also known as Industry 4.0, Advanced
Manufacturing or Industrial Internet, has evolved into a topic of heated public debate due to its
potential social and economic repercussions. Together with other recent technological advances, it
A

gave rise to calls for strengthening the role of the Austrian Parliament as a forum of informed debate
about both the promising and the problematic implications of emerging technologies for the future
of our economies and societies. In contrast to parliaments in several other European countries, the
Austrian Parliament has not been endowed with a dedicated foresight and technology assessment
(TA) support function up to now. Only recently such a function has been tested in the context of a
pilot project on Industry 4.0, which fulfilled a double role of devising and testing a methodology for
providing support to the Committee on Research, Technology and Innovation (RTI) and of giving
substantive and accessible input to the emerging parliamentary and public debates about Industry
1
4.0. This paper provides insights into the process tailored to the parliament’s needs and its
outcomes. The focus is on the design of the process and the facilitation of debates informed by an
assessment of opportunities and challenges of Industry 4.0. The underlying analysis of societal
implications covers a number of key areas; a summary of the results on skill demands and safety and
security serves as an example. In line with the growing attention that is generally paid to foresight
and TA in policy making, we reflect on how parliaments may integrate these practices into their
procedures and thus acquire a more prominent role as forums for debating the dynamics of future
socio-technical change with all its potential promises, drawbacks and associated governance
challenges.

T
Keywords: Foresight, Technology Assessment, Parliament, Socio-Technical Change, Governance

IP
1 Introduction

R
Forward-looking scientific advice to parliamentary decision-making has become an important issue
since the establishment of the US Office for Technology Assessment in the early 1970s. Since then,

SC
many other countries have institutionalised similar functions at their parliaments, even if some
abolished or re-configured these in later years. The main ambition of these early TA functions was to
provide scientifically sound expert advice to members of parliament on emerging technologies and

U
their potential medium- to long-term social, economic and environmental consequences (Vig 1992;
van Eijndhoven 1997; Ganzevles et al. 2014;). Yet, from an early stage, parliamentary TA also served
N
for additional functions such as agenda-setting in issues cutting across established policy fields, or
‘facilitating public debate and dialogue on broader ethical questions surrounding technological
A
development’ (Vig 1992, p.10; Schot and Rip 1997). This interest of parliaments in scientific advice
M

was driven first of all by the recognition of a growing importance and potentially controversial nature
of new technology, and secondly by the apparent gap between the executive and the legislative
branches of government in terms of access to knowledge about science and technology (Smits and
ED

Leyten 1988).

The needs and requirements with regard to future-oriented support have changed over the years,
and, beyond an informing and advising function, it increasingly was expected to play also a policy-
PT

facilitating function (Da Costa et al. 2008; Eriksson and Weber 2008). This development gave rise to
foresight as a participatory form of future-oriented policy support, aiming to engage the actors and
stakeholders who would subsequently shape major changes or be affected by them. By its very
E

nature, foresight was more suitable an instrument of the executive branch for policy design and
CC

implementation, but it has become more prominent an instrument for the legislative branch as well.
On the European level, foresight has contributed to political priority setting and strategic decision
making over the last thirty years (Cagnin et al 2015), also with the creation of large-scale futures
intelligence networks such as the European Techno-Economic Policy Support Network (ETEPS). The
A

European parliament draws on both foresight and technology assessment activities conducted by its
Science and Technology Options Assessment panel (STOA) and its Scientific Foresight Unit. Many
national parliaments recur to the services of TA offices and activities, and the Finnish Committee for
the Future is a very visible example of institutionalized foresight activities at national parliamentary
level in Europe.

Parliaments have always played an important role as forums for political debate visible to the public.
However, compared to the early years of TA, the role and expectations with regard to parliamentary
2
foresight and technology assessment are changing. Due to the intermingling of scientific-
technological and socio-economic matters, more space for public and political debate is needed;
space where normative and ethical dimensions of collective choices about the technology-society
nexus can be discussed openly. Parliaments are a designated space for this kind of debates, and they
are expected to play an increasingly important role in this regard. In other words, parliaments are
moving to the centre stage of political debates because of the highly dynamic character of a range of
emerging technologies which are likely to have far-reaching effects on economy and society, and
which – as a consequence – need to be debated in public and political audiences rather than being
restricted to expert circles. Such concerns are exacerbated by highly dynamic societal developments
(e.g. demographic changes, global migration flows, etc.), which interact with emerging technological

T
opportunities. Sometimes, these concerns are summarised under the headline of major or grand
societal challenges, and due to their often wicked nature, they require particular attention from

IP
policy-making (Boden et al. 2012; Kuhlmann and Rip 2014).

R
In response to these changing requirements, the forms of future-oriented support to parliaments
need to change character as well. Neither foresight nor TA alone are likely to meet the new types of

SC
requirements. There is a need to revisit current practices in order to respond to the growing need for
public and parliamentary debate around emerging science and technology options and the
opportunities to shape them.

U
This need for change was already anticipated in the 1990s by the so-called sociology of expectations,
N
which studied how actors in science and technology drew from and created various images of
expected futures that result from scientific and technological developments, and how these images
A
contributed to particular dynamics of change and influenced the thinking and decisions of engineers,
businesses and governments (Van Lente 1993). Formal foresight processes need to be aware of the
M

positive contributions as well as the limits set by the surrounding circulation of expectations,
informal estimates and images. Van Lente (2012: 777f.) provides at least three lessons about the
ED

viability and limits of foresight: (1) expectations are drawn from ubiquitous repertoires; (2)
expectations are performative, i.e. they do something (they legitimise, steer, coordinate); and (3)
expectations enhance the reflexive and strategic character of S&T (including self-fulfilling and self-
destroying dynamics).
PT

The limitations of prevailing foresight and TA practices have become more pressing with the strategic
turn in research and innovation policy since the early 2000s (Daimer et al. 2012; Weber 2012), when
E

tackling major or ‘grand’ societal challenges became a primary policy target. Failing to efficiently deal
CC

with the grand challenges, current governance structures are increasingly showing incapability of
addressing pressing complex issues, and here future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) — being
comprised of a combination of foresight, forecasting and TA approaches — is seen as a means of
resolve (Boden et al. 2012). Therefore increasingly and systematically embedding FTA into more
A

flexible science, technology and innovation governance has been repeatedly demanded (Weber et al.
2012, Haegeman et al. 2012, Cagnin et al. 2012, Georghiou and Harper 2011, Könnölä 2011).
Anticipating future impacts of science and technology as well as offering constructive visions to
actively shape futures through engagement of various actor groups is stated as the basis for
anticipatory governance (Guston 2014, Fuerth 2013).

The changing context conditions for future-oriented policy support are increasingly recognised also in
Austria, which until now did not have a proper futures intelligence function established at its
3
parliament. However, with the rise of the public and political debates about issues such as Industry
4.0, autonomous driving, and CRISPR/CAS9, the need for creating a space for debate gets more
obvious.

1.1 Socio-technical challenges of Industry 4.0 as topic of heated debate

Industry 4.0 is probably the most prominent example of a fast changing technology with major social
and economic repercussions. The widespread use of information and communication technologies to
interconnect manufacturing systems at the shop floor level along the value chain, also known as
Industry 4.0 or Advanced Manufacturing, has evolved into a topic of heated public debate. ‘Industry
4.0’ is a concept coined in Germany to describe an emerging fourth industrial revolution and is

T
closely related to terms such as ‘Smart Production’, ‘Industrial Internet’ and ‘Cyber-Physical Systems’
in the international discourse. This novel production model is mainly driven by new technological

IP
opportunities and prospects of economic benefits in terms of increased productivity, resource
efficiency, quality and flexibility. Its key characteristics are digital integration of processes throughout

R
the entire value creation chain, sensor-controlled, data-driven, largely self-optimising and self-
managing production processes, combined with new business models. Within this production system

SC
people, machines, facilities, robots, logistics systems, equipment and materials all communicate
through embedded hard- and software, Internet-based wireless technologies, as well as through
new interfaces.

U
According to the ambitious claims of its proponents, the development and implementation of
N
Industry 4.0 entails long-term transformation processes, which will result in major benefits in terms
of creating or at least safeguarding growth and employment from industrial activities. Skeptics, on
A
the contrary, point to the manifold uncertainties associated to Industry 4.0, in particular as regards
M

the net benefits to be expected, but also with regard to the requirements that need to be fulfilled in
order to turn Industry 4.0 into a socially and economically benign technology. In their opinion,
Industry 4.0 is likely to face significant challenges such as resource and skill demands, lacking
ED

standards, safety and security risks and far-reaching implications for society at large, above all
uncertainty about impacts on labour and employment, economic competitiveness and security
issues. The criticism of Pfeiffer (2017: 119) goes even further. After closely tracing the emergence of
the Industry 4.0 concept in a discourse analysis, she concludes by asking: ‘Is this digitally augmented
PT

hollowing-out of both the private sphere and of labor rights and the democratic potential of
industrial relations not a new form of despotism?’ Hirsch-Kreinsen (2016: 2) points out the
E

ambivalent character of the inherent technological promise: ‘On the one hand it shows a character of
a techno-utopia with its far-reaching generalization. On the other hand linked to this discourse there
CC

are increasingly sceptical and critical positions emphasizing social risks and negative social
consequences.’ In his eyes the danger is real that the Industry 4.0-discourse will take the course of a
typical technological ‘hype cycle’ which after a phase of exaggerated enthusiasm finally ends in
A

widespread disappointment when the high expectations turn out to be unfulfillable. Such hype cycles
are typical products of a game of expectations as a frequent concomitant of emerging technological
innovations.

1.2 Aim of this paper

Against this backdrop of a growing need for debate in a parliamentary context of fast-evolving socio-
technical challenges that have both strong scientific-technological and societal dimensions, this
article addresses the following research questions:

4
 - How could new forms of parliamentary foresight and TA respond to the growing need for
public and political debate about fast changing issues with strong scientific-technological as
well as societal dimensions?
- What specific requirements would such new forms of foresight and TA have to fulfil? And
does the methodology developed for the Austrian Parliament meet these requirements?

We address these questions by looking at some experiences from Austria, where a foresight and TA
function has recently been set up at the Austrian Parliament, and where a first pilot project has been
implemented to test new formats of scientific support to parliamentary work on future-oriented
issues. This pilot was focused on the case of Industry 4.0. The article aims to systematically

T
reconstruct and extract lessons from the first pilot application of the methodology developed. In
substantive terms, the pilot project focused on two dimensions of particular relevance to

IP
parliamentary and public debate, due to the high level of controversy and expected impact for the
further uptake of Industry 4.0: qualification and digital security. The paper presents key findings and

R
policy issues resulting from the project. Finally, an assessment is made as to whether the
methodology developed and piloted actually contributed to the creation of new knowledge of

SC
benefit to the Austrian Parliament.

2 The ‘new’ public and parliamentary governance of STI: Moving

towards foresight and technology assessment U
N
2.1 Foresight and TA in Europe
A
Technology assessment (TA) has been established as a mode for giving policy advice on science,
M

technology and innovation issues in European parliaments for more than three decades and
currently 18 institutions are members of the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment
Network, which conduct TA for or at the respective countries’ parliaments (Cruz-Castro and Sanz-
ED

Menendez 2005, EPTA 2016, Nentwich 2016). Here, modes of producing and delivering science-
based policy advice vary highly, yet there are distinctive key characteristics which allow for classifying
three models, (1) parliamentary committee model, (2) parliamentary office or parliamentary unit
model and (3) independent institute (or interactive) model (Ganzevles et al. 2014, van Est et al.
PT

2015). Independently of the model chosen, its implementation is seen as an indicator of societies
becoming more reflexive in times of increased change and uncertainty (Delvenne et al. 2011). At the
E

basis of parliamentary TA stands, regardless of the mode, the aim to expand traditional expert policy
analysis by ‘combining a multi-disciplinary evidence base with participatory approaches to policy
CC

deliberation’ (Klüver et al. 2016).

Foresight with its strong tradition of informing the executive branch and supporting change
processes in society and economy, has from its inception in the late 1980s in the UK recurred to
A

three guiding principles (Havas and Weber 2017). The first of these principles argues that the future
cannot be predicted, but is open and malleable. As a consequence, foresight tends to rely on
scenario building and adaptive strategies as means for dealing with uncertain future challenges. The
second principle states that the influence of individual actors on future change is limited. While
entrepreneurial personalities can make a difference, the systemic understanding of innovation that
underpins much of foresight work implies that often a range of technological, social and institutional
changes are needed to realize a desirable scenario. Shaping the future thus requires coherent and
coordinated action of an equally broad range of actors and stakeholders; a process that can be
5
facilitated by shared problem perceptions, orientations and visions. Given the ambition of shaping
the future, foresight thirdly aims to move from visions and scenarios to action. As shared visions are
not enough to make change happen, the definition of joint as well as individual agendas for action is
central to foresight. Mobilisation and activation of actors and stakeholders by way of participation in
foresight processes is thus a key tenet of foresight thinking. These principles have implications for the
governance, organisation and practice of foresight, and in particular for its emphasis on participation
involving key actors and stakeholders.1

Overall, both foresight and TA activities support, what Warnke et al. (2008) describe as a continuous
policy learning process. Here, instrumental and public policy learning may be discerned, whereby the

T
first is about the feasibility of particular policy instruments and the latter about the social
construction of public policy problems (Biegelbauer 2016). Successful parliamentary scientific and

IP
technological advice activities imply the willingness for policy learning as a prerequisite.

2.2 The situation in Austria

R
The limited space available in particular for this second kind of public policy learning in relation to

SC
technologies in society is a critical issue in Austria, because it constrains the ability to actively prepare
for and govern processes of far-reaching socio-technical change. Austria’s national techno-political
identity has been partially formed by the non-uptake of certain technological developments — for

U
instance nuclear power or agro-biotechnology (GMO) — a seemingly important form of innovation
governance in Austria (Felt 2015). Additionally, being embedded in a setting of strong,
N
institutionalized interdependencies between policy makers, employers’ and employees’
organizations, the Austrian political system has been very stable and resistant to change up to now,
A
resulting in a tendency to wait things out and introduce changes only haltingly and in a piecemeal
M

manner (Biegelbauer 2016). This constellation has contributed to the situation that the Austrian
Parliament, in contrast to parliaments in several other European countries, has traditionally not been
endowed with a dedicated TA or foresight support function.
ED

Reflecting the widespread turn towards more evidence-based policy making, within the Austrian
parliament a need was seen recently to assess the basis on which such a function could be
developed. Therefore the parliamentary administration solicited a study exploring expectations and
PT

needs of parliamentarians regarding robust science-based support on upcoming STI issues (Nentwich
et al. 2015), as part of a wider strategy to strengthen the inherently weak position of the Austrian
parliament and turn it into a visible new space for policy learning. Traditionally, the Austrian
E

parliament had limited possibilities to control the executive branch of government. The reasons are
CC

manifold and include scarce resources to access independent information and advice, but also a lack
of appropriate formats of open exchange and investigation involving different parliamentary groups
and the public.
A

Against this backdrop, a number of requirements can be identified that a future parliamentary
foresight and TA function should fulfil: (i) provide a space for open dialogue with society by involving
experts, stakeholders and members of parliament, (ii) future orientation by combining a thorough
assessment of future and emerging options with constructive formulation of collective strategies, (iii)
flexible uptake of newly emerging issues by way of monitoring and horizon scanning activities, (iv)

1 The practical guidance of foresight processes is often captured by the five C’s (Martin 1995, Martin and Johnston 1999):
Concentration on the future, Communication, Consensus and conflict, Commitment, and Coordination.
6
provide targeted and focused input to parliamentary work by designing appropriate formats for
communication.

On the grounds of these needs and expectations, the described foresight and TA pilot study on
Industry 4.0 developed and implemented a process prototype in practice aiming to show its validity
for use in a parliamentary context. The pilot project was to fulfill a double role: a) devising and
piloting a methodology for providing useful support to the Committee on Research, Technology and
Innovation (RTI), and b) providing substantive and accessible input to the emerging parliamentary
and public debates about Industry 4.0. Thus far, the debate about Industry 4.0 has mainly taken place
among experts, but in view of its social and economic repercussions, a need was seen to strengthen

T
the role of Austrian Parliament as a forum of informed debate about both the promising as well as
potentially problematic implications of Industry 4.0. This is, of course, on the one hand a matter of

IP
generating meaningful content, but on the other also of designing a suitable foresight and TA process
to co-create useful content in interaction between members of parliament, experts and

R
stakeholders. In process terms, the approach developed took inspiration in both the foresight and
the TA traditions of futures research. It combined expert inputs and desk research with participatory

SC
workshops, with the particular aim to foster an informed dialogue between experts and stakeholders
on the one hand and members of parliament on the other hand.

3 A pilot project on Industry 4.0 for the Austrian Parliament U

N
The long-term, wide- and far-reaching aspects of Industry 4.0 make it a typical example of socio-
technical challenges contemporary societies face. In particular, it is a challenge for the political
A
system in terms of establishing effective and well-balanced STI governance. The members of the
M

Committee on RTI chose Industry 4.0 from four primed topics2 introduced as possible objects of
investigation for a pilot project to demonstrate the value and functionality of foresight and
technology assessment for the Austrian Parliament.
ED

In parallel with the pilot project on Industry 4.0, a feasibility and design study was conducted, which
focused on the expectations and needs of Austrian parliamentarians regarding scientific support on
STI issues set a challenging framework for the design of a foresight and TA process on a specific topic
PT

(Nentwich et al. 2015). According to that study, in depth information portraying and assessing all
relevant opinions was expected, yet time constraints of the packed schedules of parliamentarians
pointed toward short, accessible reports and presentations. Taking this into account, the project
E

team chose to apply a series of short interactive workshops as core component, allowing for concise
CC

presentations and discussions, yet also mutual learning processes based on deliberation and
supported by compact written reports or summaries to be distributed after and before such events
as a wrap-up or preparation respectively. However, it was regarded important to schedule one
longer (half-day) workshop to engage with a wider audience and elicit necessary additional
A

knowledge. The repeated interaction, if only short at times, additionally served for building trust
between members of the Committee on RTI, the directorate of the parliament - the solicitor of the
study, and the project team.

In the next section (3.1.) we will give an overview and a detailed description of the methodology
applied, followed by an overview of the final results mainly produced in the co-creative part of the

2 The other three topics were: Big data; New forms of innovation; Responsible research and innovation
7
methodology (3.2). In section 3.3 we will present our assessment of intended and reached impact of
the process on parliamentary level.

3.1 Methodology
The design of the foresight and TA pilot project on Industry 4.0 for the Austrian Parliament
deliberately combined scientific analysis with interactive workshop and discussion formats. The
whole process spanned across a timeline starting with the delivery of a background paper in April
2015 and ending with a summarizing final report in December 2015.Figure 1 shows an overview of
the overall process, the actors involved and the products developed in the course of the foresight
and TA pilot study for the Austrian Parliament. Overall the process included seven steps: (1) The

T
starting point was the production of a profound background paper on the societal dimensions and
implications of Industry 4.0, reviewing in depth the state of academic literature as well as

IP
publications produced by stakeholders such as businesses or think thanks (Aichholzer et al. 2015a).
(2) This served as an input to the first workshop with the Committee on RTI aimed at choosing two

R
topics for further development and deeper analysis. (3) On each of the two topics chosen –
education and training, and safety and security - an expert paper was solicited to gain a deeper

SC
understanding of implications within these key challenges. (4) In a second larger workshop engaging
policy makers, key stakeholders and experts in a forward-looking exercise the two selected key
challenges were addressed. (5) The workshop results were than post-processed and a results report

U
was fed into (6) a third workshop engaging members of parliament with the aim to start formulating
options for action. (7) Results were then drawn up in a final report that yet again passed the
N
Committee on RTI for a final feedback before being officially published (Aichholzer et al. 2015b).
A
3.1.1 Background paper – setting a baseline for informed dialogue
M

An in depth literature review comprising both academic as well as stakeholder-based publications

was conducted, which resulted in a background paper (Aichholzer et al. 2015a). It summarizes nine
dimensions of impact and key challenges of Industry 4.0 as well as the current status of
ED

implementation in selected economies and with a focus on Austria. To establish a baseline for an
informed dialogue the introduction to the paper also describes the basics of Industry 4.0 (and related
concepts such as Industrial Internet and Smart Production), including a short history of the concept,
PT

objectives and expected benefits. The main part of the paper introduces employment, work
organisation, education and training, health and wellbeing, use of resources, economy and
competition, safety and security, technical standards, and regulation as key dimensions of impact as
E

well as interconnected challenges on each of which a brief summary of the existing evidence is
CC

presented.

3.1.2 Workshop1 – discussing and selecting topics for further exploration

Two weeks after delivering the background paper, an interactive workshop with the Committee on
A

RTI was conducted to present and facilitate deliberation on the nine dimensions and key challenges,
aiming to prioritize two topics for further investigation. After selecting two topics, the project team
solicited two papers from external scientific experts, deliberately dispensing with the usual expert
pool consulted by Austrian parliamentarians or parliamentary groups. This was a necessary step to
further ensure and build trust in the process and its products with the involved MPs. The papers
provided in depth analyses of the two selected key challenges. The first paper, explored ‘effects of
Industry 4.0 on vocational education and training’ (Pfeiffer 2015), the second one ‘security in the
electronic universe’ (Leopold 2015).

8
3.1.3 Workshop 2 – engaging key stakeholders and a wider audience within the parliament
The second workshop explored future opportunities and risks of Industry 4.0 to support the
parliamentary debate on the issue. Various key stakeholders were engaged to elicit a holistic picture
of expectations and awaited challenges aiming to represent a wide variety of perspectives. Under the
title ‘Future Challenges of Industry 4.0’ the exercise was held on June 24th, 2015 and dealt with
qualification requirements and digital security issues. Introduced by short presentations about the
key issues that were explored within the described expert papers, a future oriented dialogue was
facilitated, engaging parliamentarians, their assistants, experts and stakeholders in four working
groups with a total of approximately 40 participants. Here, the following steps were applied and
supported by the project team: (1) Each working group developed a vision of a desirable future state

T
of Austria’s socio-technical production system in 2030, with regard to security and qualification
respectively, facilitated by a creative individual brainstorming approach leading to group discussions

IP
and additive visioning. (2) Participants then discussed and shortlisted key influencing factors to the
implementation of the vision. (3) In a third step potential impact was assessed by an individual voting

R
on the dimensions of strength of influence and the estimated certainty of occurrence of the factors
regarded as most relevant. Due to time constraints, the focus was directed towards a discussion and

SC
review of two types of factors: (a) key factors with high influence, but entailing high uncertainty of
implementation, and (b) trends with a potentially high impact and high certainty of implementation.
(4) Finally options for action were developed and discussed, while also considering approaches that

U
already exist in Austria and Europe to influence the key factors and trends identified. In addition,
N
actors in Austria were identified that may play a pivotal role in dealing with the challenges arising
from the goal to actively shape the future production landscape.
A
3.1.4 Workshop 3 – deliberating results
M

The third Workshop was conducted by the project team with parliamentarians in a similar manner as
the first one, being introduced by summaries of the main findings of the second workshop, followed
by a session of questions and answers on the contents and their implications. As a subsequent work
ED

step a facilitated interactive session was planned to enrich the developed options for actions and to
collaboratively assign policy tools for their implementation. However, this step failed to be
implemented as it did not trigger the expected amount of response by the participants, the
Committee on RTI and interested MPs. Finally, the parliamentarians assessed the foresight and TA
PT

pilot project from a meta-perspective and provided very positive and encouraging feedback on the
experiences made.
E

3.2 Results: content

CC

Generally, the process applied for the Austrian parliament produced results on different levels:
content and process. With regard to the applied process, we present the results of our assessment of
the process and its impact on parliamentary level in section 3.3. Regarding content on ‘Industry 4.0’,
three kinds of results may be discerned: The first result was the background paper which subsumed
A

current state of the art of scientific knowledge on several dimensions of Industry 4.0 and its social,
technical and economic and political implications to set a baseline for an informed dialogue. On this
basis, the committee on RTI chose two topics for further exploration on which two experts produced
an in depth scientific analysis (the second result). Finally, the actually innovative third set of results
derives from the co-creative process mainly conducted during the second workshop, post-produced
by the project team and refined in the third workshop. The following section (3.2.1) will give some
illustrative examples of intermediate results co-produced during the second workshop. Sections

9
(3.2.2 and 3.2.3) summarize final findings on the two key topics. For a detailed description of results
see the final project report (Aichholzer et al. 2015b). A more specific account of how these outcomes
took shape in the dialogue would be desirable, yet the project team refrained from detailed
recordings of discussions in the workshops (neither dictaphone nor note-taker), as all workshops
were held under Chatham House Rule3. This decision was taken to provide an open and safe
atmosphere for dialogue, lower barriers for discussants not used to such settings, and to encourage
and trustful exchange of thoughts and opinions. Inputs were gathered on flipcharts, the results
summarized in an internal intermediate report for the subsequent interactions with the Committee
on RTI and post-produced by the project team to flow into the final report.

3.2.1 Exemplary intermediate results

T
During the second workshop experts, stakeholders and MPs were split in four discussion groups (two

IP
tables on security, two on education). Experts and Stakeholders were assigned to the groups by
expertise, while MPs and their assistants could freely choose a topic. After the two expert inputs

R
followed a facilitated discussion and brainstorming on questions such as ‘What are characteristics of
secure Industry 4.0 value creation networks’ or ‘Which requirements do they meet regarding

SC
systems, companies, people? Clustering the brainstorming results of the two tables on security for
example led to four key areas that built the pillars for a joint vision on an ideal state in 2030: legal
framework/standards, characteristics of future production networks, transnational and intersectoral

U
cooperation as well as social requirements. The vision was spelled out as:
N
‘By 2030, there are comprehensive international IT security standards in place that enable
decentralized, global and highly secure production networks. There are clear rules for the protection
A
of personal data, intellectual property rights and the use of Big Data. A broad awareness of IT security
has been created in society, which has led to a lot less avoidable security gaps. Security solutions have
M

been developed through European co-operations which enjoy the highest level of trust (Aichholzer et
al. 2015b: 34)’.
ED

Afterwards the groups discerned key factors with major influence on developments but uncertain
implementation status within the next 15 years and trends, expressed as showing high influence, yet
relatively certain implementation. Key-factors in the security sector were, for instance: regulatory
PT

framework conditions, standards, national technological competence, as well as building trust in

security solutions. Furthermore the following developments were expected as trends: security by
design; emphasis on user-friendliness; education and training enabling new job profiles and safety
E

awareness; exertion of influence of large IT producers; differing goals of various actors and the
CC

respective need for compromise; research and research funding leading to innovative IT solutions.
On this basis, participants of the second workshop finally developed options for action for various
actors, such as the state, industry or interest groups to exert positively influence on key factors and
trends. The following two sections provide a summary of the final results obtained after the third
A

workshop, in which a detailed discussion of the findings of the second workshop was held with the
Committee on RTI and several other interested MPs, but which failed to deliver the aimed for
elaboration of those options concerning the actor ‘state’ .

3 The Chatham House Rule has the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing
of information. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
10
3.2.2 Digital security and safety
Digital safety and security was identified as one of the most critical issues affecting the future
viability of Industry 4.0, and thus of the likelihood of reaping the promised benefits associated to it.
Digitalisation, automatization and digital networks lead to several kinds of safety and security risks
and challenges. These affect the safe interaction between autonomous systems and humans. On the
one hand, humans can be harmed by autonomous systems, and some cases of severe injuries have
already happened. On the other hand, sensor-based systems can also help reduce safety threats on
the shop floor by enabling higher precision of operations and higher levels of quality control. In terms
of security, interventions in networked digital systems can create damage and interruption of
operations, up to the point of destroying production systems. Matters of data security are of major

T
importance for firms who fear breaches of their intellectual property rights. Data protection (e.g. of
workers) represent yet another type of concern. Cyber-attacks on complex interconnected systems

IP
can even severely damage entire economies, for instance if vital infrastructure systems are affected.
The main options of establishing and ensuring high safety and security standards are divided into

R
four groups:

SC
Establishing a national and international legal framework for data protection, privacy and big data:
Adequate regulatory frameworks are intended to establish legal certainty, ensure the practicability of
the regulations and strengthen acceptance, responsibility (e.g. liability) and competition. Overall,

U
there are significant legal challenges related to I4.0 and Austrian actors have limited influence
regarding the global scale of the development, nevertheless engaging in international committees
N
may promote creating such a framework for security. Liability and data protection as well as labor
A
and social law may need amendments, as systems become increasingly vulnerable with increased
networking and thus also openness. This leads to a need for clarifying questions regarding liability for
M

damage to machines, products, assets and people. A prerequisite for the acceptance of opening
systems is the protection of sensitive company data which is prone to e.g. know-how theft or product
piracy. Also, protection of privacy must be legally clarified since I4.0 environments increase flow of
ED

personal data. Technical as well as legal security measures are indispensable for an adequate level of
protection. Standardization is a cross-cutting theme that needs to be addressed both from the public
as well as from the private side in a joint effort.
PT

Expansion of scientific and technological skills: Promotion and investment incentives can support
establishing secure IT systems, by supporting the development of socio-technical solutions,
qualification and consulting measures as well as expansion of competences. These are prerequisites
E

for a conscious handling of security risks. Such incentives should promote integrative approaches,
CC

combining technological solutions with knowledge from social sciences and humanities. Since
security of systems depends primarily on human factors, appropriate awareness raising should
become a central issue for companies as well as for individuals. In this context, clear legal regulations
A

can support building confidence and should be communicated transparently within the education
programs. Additionally, support for and structuring of consulting activities could be supported in a
targeted manner in order to establish uniform standards.

Structures and organizations for information exchange and risk management: In order to quickly and
effectively deal with potential security issues and implement security measures, structures and
organizations are required to provide an early and overlapping exchange of information on cyber-
attacks for better defense and efficient analysis of the current threat situation. Early information
exchange between businesses and between the relevant units in public administration (e.g., within
11
ministries) can support the analysis and potential warning of other stakeholders in the system. To
protect IT infrastructures effectively and strengthen their resilience after acts of force majeure, it is
necessary to evaluate existing and elaborate risk and emergency management plans and the existing
Cyber Emergency Response Team. Also, large-scale emergency practices that simulate cyber-attacks
help to assess and deal with a variety of emergencies.

Creating awareness of and trust in security solutions: Due to the increasing networking and
cooperation between different partners, strong trust in the respective other and systems is required
since the least secure partner determines the security of the entire network. Reliable concepts, clear
legal regulations and standards are the basis of this trust. In particular, uncertainty of the legal

T
situation, as well as ambiguous cross-border regulations are not conducive to building confidence in
digital and highly networked systems. Joint efforts are necessary across sectors and countries,

IP
involving private and public stakeholders to pursue European-wide and international regulations.
Awareness of these rules must be built within the framework of education and training, and

R
transparency and clear communication of laws and liability is essential. Increasing awareness of and
confidence in IT security can be fostered through trustworthy labels as well as applying the privacy-

SC
by-design principle and including end-users during the development of new technologies.

3.2.3 Education and further training

U
Just as managing digital security and safety, sufficient provision of adequate skills is regarded as a key
factor for a successful transition to and operation of an Industry 4.0 production system. Development
N
and operation of complex, digitally integrated production processes based on data-driven procedures
and business models require a number of new skills and qualifications (Pfeiffer 2015). The
A
convergence of mechanic, electronic and software-based components, the new role of
comprehensive data analysis, increased use and new forms of robotics entail significant changes in
M

skill demands. As a general trend, technical qualifications will enjoy increasing importance. This
includes deeper and wider ICT skills, competencies to design complex techno-organisational
ED

innovation processes and for interdisciplinary development of production systems as well as for the
communication in networked systems. Moreover, existing studies project an increasing demand for
skills in mathematics, sciences and technologies as well as for software developers, data analysts,
technicians in operational technology and computer-based systems monitoring. Likewise there is a
PT

growing demand for the ability to organise and control interactions between virtual and real
components of cyber-physical systems (CPS). Here a special skill challenge is to be able to relate the
offline and online sides of CPS in their design as well as everyday operation which requires
E

experience based understanding of the links between material-physical and digital processes (for
CC

example, knowing when a sensor in an operating machine provides erroneous data because of
specific environmental influences such as dirt, vibration or wear out, although it principally measures
as it should). To meet this demand, experts suggest integrating appropriate IT skills into existing
A

education profiles with mechanic, electronic or mechatronic contents as well as into new hybrid
occupational profiles of skilled workers.

On the other hand so-called key qualifications become especially important to help coping with
transformation processes and to enable frictionless systems operation. This includes competencies
such as willingness to learn, team-working, flexibility, problem analysis and problem solution, project
and team management, social skills, system thinking and understanding of multi-actor collaboration
processes.

12
As a consequence, education and training supplied at different levels and by different providers are
challenged to react to the changing qualification demands. Above all, the qualification system as a
whole has to prove its ability to innovate its supply and to adapt its education and training contents.
Appropriate adjustments in the various curricula of the apprentice system (‘dual system’), i.e. the
training of skilled workers, and in vocational medium and higher technical schools are of special
importance. At company level special importance needs to be attributed to the management of
participatory implementation processes, on the job or near-workplace training offerings, a work
organisation which promotes learning, and the use of digital learning technologies (e-learning,
blended learning, augmented learning). At school level a deepening of basic IT competencies for all,
not only in technical skills, is recommended as well as special measures to cope with the aggravating

T
problem of early school-drop outs and unskilled youth. In the higher education system new courses
and curricula adjustments are required to meet the demand for interdisciplinary qualifications

IP
(mechanical, electrical and technical computer science, material sciences, management science) and
new occupational profiles. For example, data scientist, production computer scientist and

R
professionals for system security and usability are expected to complement already established

SC
occupations, such as production planner, automation engineer or testing and certification service
provider.

3.3 Results: assessment of process and impacts

U
Having described the methodological approach and direct results of the pilot project on Industry 4.0
as a foresight and technology assessment exercise for the Austrian Parliament, we turn to the second
N
major task: to grasp its potential for enhancing parliamentarian debate and the impact on the
A
involved parliamentarians as well as the Austrian Parliament as a whole. Of course a systematic
impact analysis in the full sense would be desirable; however, we have to manage with a more
M

modest approach. It builds mainly on two elements: a) direct assessments of the pilot project and its
outcome by the involved parliamentarians, and b) the authors’ observations during the project
process and of parliamentary activities around the pilot project since its completion. Being aware of
ED

the inherent limitations of evaluative statements by project team members, all efforts are made to
ensure a maximum of transparency of our own assessments of impacts.

3.3.1 Novel forms of knowledge acquisition

PT

Grounded by evidence from these observations and direct feedback from parliamentarians involved
mainly two lines of impact can be discerned. As a first impact, the pilot project provided
parliamentarians and their support staff with an opportunity for novel forms of knowledge
E

acquisition and interactive exchange with experts and different stakeholders during three
CC

workshops. While not being used to such a format, interaction and deliberation between
parliamentarians of opposing parties stayed minimal in the first workshop dedicated to topic
selection, despite intensive attempts by the facilitators to stimulate such a debate. Here, positions
A

seemed prefixed, and consensus on the selection of topics for a deepened examination could be
reached relatively fast, yet making the impression of deliberatively avoiding politically highly
controversial topics such as employment issues, despite the fact that this was highlighted as one of
the most influential topics urgently in need of investigation. Additionally, the MPs refrained from
engaging in an interactive session at the third workshop, aiming to enrich the options for actions and
to collaboratively assign policy tools for their implementation. While this was a surprise for the
facilitators, it seems that such a step towards reflections on appropriate policy instruments or
developing own policy measures was beyond what the parliamentarians were prepared to discuss

13
without prior backing from their respective parliamentary groups. While this is of course a
speculative statement, it could be an important barrier owed to the traditional parliamentary culture
in Austria and the strong embedding of MPs in parliamentary group discipline.

Nevertheless, the pilot project environment allowed MPs to experience key issues and challenges as
well as the views of a diverse set of stakeholders exposed and debated in direct exchange. As part of
the mixed group MPs were not only observers of the common reflections but were almost inevitably
invited to relate themselves to the views and arguments brought forward, to see their own opinion
and knowledge confirmed or reason to revise it. At least in a limited fashion especially the setting of
the second workshop gave MPs the opportunity to participate in developing ideas in common and to

T
reflect on appropriate actions and policy measures to be taken. In fact the project served as an arena
for parliamentarians to discuss a topic with far-reaching future relevance, somewhat protected from

IP
day-to-day affairs of parliamentary work, which tends to be driven by a lack of time for reflection and
reasoned decision making. It is especially topics that require forward-looking and long-term planning,

R
which are often omitted within a setting of increasing amounts of information and an increasing
work speed.

SC
With concise compilation of non-partisan information from multiple perspectives (such as a
background paper to start the first workshop), followed by explanatory expert presentations the

U
parliamentarians experienced new forms of knowledge transmission and learning opportunities. This
includes various kinds of policy learning, understood as “cognitive processes elicited by experiences
N
and/or new information resulting in relatively enduring alterations of thought, skills and behavioural
intentions” (Biegelbauer 2016: 131), above all potentials for instrumental as well social (policy)
A
learning (cf. Freeman 2006).
M

Direct feedback from parliamentarians at the end of the final workshop provided some
substantiation that such effects have taken place (see Nentwich et al. 2015, 27ff.). Participating
parliamentarians from all parties valued the experience of the Industry 4.0 pilot project as a positive
ED

one, found the applied model of foresight and technology assessment processes well suited for
complex topics and issues, in particular their treatment in the chosen workshop formats which were
seen as very informative. However, the parliamentarians also pointed to limits of their available time
PT

budgets for participation in such processes which would not allow them to engage in several such
time-consuming exercises per year.
E

3.3.2 Consolidating a foresight and TA-oriented FTI advice service

A second indication of impact can be attributed to the pilot study on Industry 4.0 in combination with
CC

the study on requirements and options to institutionalise a TA and foresight function at the Austrian
parliament (Nentwich et al. 2015). Not only did the parliamentarians, along with their final
evaluation of the pilot project, express the need for a science-based support for their future
A

parliamentary work but also started thinking about possible organisational options. During 2016 the
Parliamentary Administration was mandated to launch a call for tenders to install a foresight and TA-
oriented RTI advice service. The mandate lead to a call for tenders in early 2017, requesting
proposals for a next round of joint foresight and TA activities, with a continuous technology
monitoring process at its beginning, followed by studies regarding relevant technological
developments and policy impacts. This step is of special importance as it indicates a change in
parliamentary practices in RTI matters signalling an awareness of the need for strengthening the
knowledge base at hand for the Austrian Parliament. It can also be interpreted as a step towards

14
improving its capacities as the government’s legislative branch in comparison to the traditionally
much better equipped executive branch and as a step towards exploring new modes of RTI
governance.

4 Discussion
A major motivation of parliamentarians for engaging in the pilot project on Industry 4.0 and a
continued advice service on major RTI issues is their interest to recoup the lead of the executive
government branch in RTI policy-making. From the interviews conducted during the project this wish
to communicate on a level playing field with the executive branch became very clear (Nentwich et al.

T
2016). In addition, there are recurrent demands from political parties, in particular opposition parties
and new players among these, for a more active role of parliament in drafting laws on its own

IP
initiative instead of mainly working on government proposals. At the same time, especially the
smaller parties have limited personnel and material resources to engage into deeper reflection and

R
discussion of challenges and policy options of technological innovation. Against this background,
access to adequate knowledge is seen as an important means for measuring up to their counterparts

SC
in government, which becomes more important than actively developing specific policy measures on
their own. At least this would explain the parliamentarians’ hesitance at the final workshop when it
came to go further into exploring possible concrete actions of RTI policy as envisaged by the project
plans.
U
N
4.1.1 Set-backs and room for improvement
Even though parliamentarians stated that they overall valued their experience with the pilot project
A
and articulated a general need for more TA and foresight at the parliament in the future, the project
team made the observation that it was hard to establish a genuine dialogue between members of
M

parliament on the one side, and experts and stakeholders on the other. This applied to both the
project workshops and to the more specialised small group meetings, for instance with the
ED

Committee on RTI. Here, many times the information flow was unidirectional, with experts,
stakeholders and project team talking and members of parliament or their assistants listening, asking
questions or adding commenting statements at times.
PT

The reasons for this reluctance to engage in an open dialogue about policy options are probably
manifold, but it seems that the formalised, if not ritualised, formats of exchange between
E

parliamentary groups, which are common at the Austrian parliament, have nurtured a culture of
debate that is not amenable to a quick shift to an open and solution-oriented mode of dialogue.
CC

Overall, the working mode improved during the project, as for instance the communication mode in
early meetings was dominated by single partisan statements with only loose reference to each other.
A

Later this mode somewhat changed, and modest beginnings of dialogue emerged offering mutual
information flows increasingly dominated by content-centred questions rather than partisan settings.
Here, future orientation of the discussions paired with a common understanding of emerging issues
may have been an important factor, dragging mindsets out of day-to-day policy work into proactive
solution orientation. Additionally, trust built throughout several meetings in the course of almost a
year, is definitely one of the key prerequisites for effective communication - even if the reluctance to
engage in an open dialogue about policy options at the third workshop indicates the limits to trust-
building. We can only speculate on the reasons for this reluctance, for instance, that

15
parliamentarians felt the project went beyond its remit, and that any further steps first had to be
cross-checked with the different parliamentary groups. Moreover, the collaborative cross-party co-
creation approach in a relatively open space with several project team members present in a
moderating or advising role may have been perceived as too unusual and experimental.

4.1.2 Experimental role of the pilot and future parliamentary foresight and TA
Content-wise, the pilot project contributed to positioning the parliament as an active player in the
debate on Industry 4.0 in Austria. While matters of qualification and security have been part of the
debate already, the specific societal concerns tied to these matters were brought more prominently
to the fore, and the stakeholders involved in the process became aware of the concerns of
parliamentarians. Still, given the prominence of Industry 4.0 in policy debates in Austria, it is clear

T
that within the few months of its operation this pilot project could not initiate a fundamental change

IP
of the mode of parliamentary work on STI issues. It played an experimental role, triggering some
sensitisation for the benefits of a deepened dialogue between parliamentarians, scientific experts

R
and stakeholders.

SC
There are at least three reasons to expect that future foresight and TA activities by the parliament
may focus on similar or even more futuristic topics with the potential to lead to public and policy
debates. One is the unavoidable pressure from ongoing, technological innovations such as

U
autonomous vehicles paired with the change to electric drive, smart production using new forms of
robots and artificial intelligence, or synthetic biology, which call for taking viable positions in the
N
governance of these potentially disruptive developments. A second driver are increased expectations
within society and, with the spread of principles of responsible research and innovation (RRI) also
A
within the STI community, of finding balanced and sustainable ways of politically shaping these
developments. In this situation it is a mediating function of parliamentary TA and foresight between
M

the spheres of parliament, government, science and technology, and society (Ganzevles et al. 2014;
van Est et al. 2015) that is called for and which an interactive process design as practised in the
ED

Austrian pilot project can support. Compared to developments at the international level this would
be another form of shared parliament-government-science-society involvement in TA and foresight
as observable in different shapes in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Finland and the USA
(Ganzevles et al. 2014, 308). A third reason, and an already materialised step, is the recently
PT

launched framework contract of the Austrian Parliament over continuous TA and foresight services,
to be delivered by the Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Science and
the Center for Innovation Systems and Policy at the Austrian Institute of Technology. The contract
E

builds on two main pillars, namely semi-annual monitoring reports supported by short studies on
CC

current technology issues and trends, and in-depth analyses of selected topics, to support the
parliament in its forward-looking research, innovation and technology policy.4
A

5 Conclusions
To return to the research questions raised in the introduction to this article, the process model
developed for parliamentary foresight and TA was quite successful in introducing a new and more
open frame for dialogue between members of parliament, experts and stakeholders. However, it
became also clear that the culture of dialogue at the Austrian parliament is constrained by limited
resources of time for debate and a dominance of traditional formats of exchange, which are rather

4 See for a brief overview: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/en/projects/monitoring-for-the-austrian-parliament/overview/

16
formal and confrontational. An important contribution of TA and foresight at the Austrian parliament
could thus consist of increasing the sensitisation for technological and societal challenges and the
need for more in-depth exchange on action requirements, which could lead to building trust and
establishing new forums for exchange where constructive dialogue can take place to enable policy
learning.

This need for more dialogue was expressed by several parliamentarians, but they are also confronted
with severe time constraints, which may prevent them to engage in – more time-consuming –
formats of debate. There is thus a risk of falling back into a traditional mode of scientific advice based
on information provision only rather than on genuine dialogue. In other words, there is an obvious

T
tension between the perceived need for future-oriented open debate and dialogue on the one hand,
and the time available to dedicate to such activities. However, the recently signed framework

IP
contract for the provision of foresight and TA services to the Austrian Parliament is an indication of
the importance assigned to the introduction of new formats of future-oriented advice and dialogue.

R
However, the monitoring process, which was launched as first project within the newly signed
framework contract, remains a limited expression of parliamentary foresight and TA activities,

SC
stripping such endeavours of their dialogue and co-creational capacities. The preparation of a concise
report is followed by a presentation and discussion at the RTI committee. It remains to be seen
whether other projects within the framework contract will follow a more dialogue-oriented

U
approach. Several new MPs have entered the Austrian Parliament after the recent elections, and
even some parliamentary groups have disappeared while new ones have entered parliament. In this
N
light, one of the challenges will be to keep the experience of the first pilot project alive, maintain the
A
momentum, and make sure that an organisational memory of foresight and TA experience is built.

As regards the second research question, it is still too early to assess whether one of the key
M

requirements of new forms of foresight and TA, namely the extent to which (public) policy learning
was achieved, was met or not. The experience of the pilot project was promising in terms of creating
ED

a new type of space for debate, which generally was very much welcomed by the members of
parliament. First steps towards changing from a formal and confrontational towards an open and
constructive mode of dialogue were made, as a pre-condition for effective policy learning in a
parliamentary setting. However, confrontational rituals of party politics among parliamentary groups
PT

were difficult to overcome, and it remains to be seen whether a change in parliamentary culture can
be achieved; a change which also hinges upon the continuity of at least some MPs in the RTI
committee after the elections. It is a promising sign though, that future foresight and TA activities
E

shall not only be addressed to the RTI committee but to all parliamentary committees.
CC

For the future, the kinds of dialogue formats tested in the context of this foresight and TA pilot
project will need to be designed with a close view to the time and availability of parliamentarians in
order to be as effective as possible. Moreover, the spaces for debate created should be positioned
A

clearly and visibly outside of the frame of parliamentary party politics. Only then it will be possible to
debate controversial topics openly, i.e. before they enter the terrain of party politics and mutual
positioning of parliamentary groups. This in turn, requires choosing topics for foresight and TA
debate, which are well ahead of the current agendas. This would be decisive for parliamentarians to
engage openly in long-term future-oriented debates; debates that would at the same allow the
parliament to define corridors for policy making on matters of major societal significance well ahead
of the executive branch, and thus find a proper role in the governance of socio-technical change.

17
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees and the editors of this special issue for
their valuable comments and suggestions. The research presented in this paper is based on
information gathered during the project “Industrie 4.0. Foresight & Technikfolgenabschätzung zur
gesellschaftlichen Dimension der nächsten industriellen Revolution [Industry 4.0. Foresight and
Technology Assessment on the Societal Dimension of the Next Industrial Revolution]“, financed by
the Austrian Parliament.

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

18
References
Aichholzer, G., Rhomberg, W., Gudowsky, N., Saurwein, F., Weber M. (2015a) Industry 4.0 - Background Paper
on the pilot project “Industry 4.0: Foresight & Technology Assessment on the social dimension of the
next industrial revolution”. Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Institute of Technology
GmbH (eds.) ITA-Project report Nr.: ITA-AIT-1en, ISSN: 1819-1320, ISSN-online: 1818-6556,
epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/ITA-AIT-1en.pdf

Aichholzer, G., Rhomberg, W., Gudowsky, N., Saurwein, F., Weber M. (2015b) Industrie 4.0 – Foresight &
Technikfolgenabschätzung zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension der nächsten industriellen Revolution
(Zusammenfassender Endbericht). Bericht-Nr. ITA-AIT-2; Wien; im Auftrag von: Österreichische
Parlamentsdirektion. http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/ITA-AIT-2.pdf

T
Biegelbauer, P. (2016) How different forms of policy learning influence each other: case studies from Austrian
innovation policy-making, Policy Studies 37(2), 129-146, DOI:10.1080/01442872.2015.1118027

IP
Boden, M., Johnston, R., Scapolo, F. (2012) The role of FTA in responding to grand challenges: A new approach
for STI policy? Science and Public Policy 39: 135–139. Doi:10.1093/scipol/scs026

R
Cagnin, C., Johnston, R., Giesecke, S. (2015) Foresight contribution to grand challenges and participative

SC
governance in different cultural settings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 101: 182-184

Cagnin, C., Amanatidou, E., Keenan, M. (2012) Orienting European innovation systems towards grand
challenges and the roles that FTA can play. Science and Public Policy 39(2): 140-152.

U
Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menendez, L. (2005) Politics and institutions: European parliamentary technology
assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72: 429–448
N
Da Costa, O., Warnke, P., Cagnin, C., Scapolo, F. (2008) The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from
A
the FORLEARN mutual learning process. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20: 369-387

Delvenne, P. , Fallon, C., Brunet, S. (2011) Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of
M

reflexive modernization. Technology in Society 33: 36–43

EPTA (2016) European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. http://eptanetwork.org/members, accessed

13.7.2016
ED

Eriksson E.A., Weber K.M. (2008) Adaptive Foresight. Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 75: 462-482
PT

Felt, U. (2015) Keeping Technologies Out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of Austria's
technopolitical identity. In Jasanoff, Sheila, and Kim, Sang – Hyung (eds), Dreamscapes of
Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (Chicago: Chicago University
Press): 103-125
E

Freeman, R. (2006) Learning in Public Policy. In Moran, M., Rein, M., and Godin, R.E. (eds.) The Oxford
CC

Handbook of Public Policy (Oxfrod: Oxford University Press): 367-388

Fuerth, L. S. (2013). Anticipatory governance: Winning the future. The Futurist, 47(4), 42-49.
A

Ganzevles, J., van Est, R., Nentwich, M. (2014) Embracing variety: introducing the inclusive modelling of
(Parliamentary) technology assessment. Journal of Responsible Innovation, Volume 1, Issue 3,
DOI:10.1080/23299460.2014.968439

Georghiou, L., Cassigena-Harper, J. (2011) From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for
research and innovation policy and strategy. Futures 43:243-251

Guston, D..H (2014) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science vol. 44 no. 2 218-
24210.1177/0306312713508669

19
Haegeman, K., Weber, M., Könnölä,T. (2012) Preparing for grand challenges: the role of future-oriented
technology analysis in anticipating and shaping structural and systemic changes. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management 24: 729-734. DOI:10.1080/09537325.2012.715475

Havas, A., Weber, K.M. (2017) The ‘fit’ between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy
governance sub-system: A framework to explore potential impacts. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 115: 327-337

Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2016) “Industry 4.0" as Promising Technology: Emergence, Semantics and Ambivalent
Character. Soziologisches Arbeitspapier Nr. 48 /2016, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund,
Germany. <http://www.wiso.tu-dortmund.de/wiso/is/de/forschung/soz_arbeitspapiere/AP-SOZ-
48.pdf>

T
Martin, B.R. (1995) Foresight in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
7(2):139-168

IP
Martin, B.R., Johnston, R. (1999) Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation System.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 60: 37-54

R
Klüver, L., Nielsen, R., Jørgensen M.L. (eds.) Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding

SC
Capacities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. doi: 10.1057/9781137561725.0007

Könnölä,T., Scapolo, F., Desruelle, P., Mu, R. (2011) Foresight tackling societal challenges: Impacts and
implications on policy-making. Futures 43:252–264

U
Kuhlmann, S. and Rip, A. (2014) The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges. A think piece on how innovation
can be driven towards the “Grand Challenges” as defined under the prospective European Union
N
Framework Programme Horizon 2020. University of Twente , p. 1-11,
http://doc.utwente.nl/92463/1/The_challenge_of_addressing_Grand_Challenges.pdf
A
Leopold, H. (2015) Sicherheit im elektronischen Universum Neue Bedrohungspotenziale brauchen effektive
M

Gegenstrategien und eine gemeinsame gesellschaftliche Anstrengung. AIT Austrian Institute of

Technology GmbH. <epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-papers/Industrie4-0_Security.pdf>

Members of the EPTA Network. ITA manu:script 16-02, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy
ED

of Sciences, Vienna. <http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_16_02.pdf>

Nentwich, M. (2016) Parliamentary Technology Assessment Institutions and Practices. A Systematic

Comparison of 15 Members of the EPTA Network. ITA-manu:script 16-02.
http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_16_02.pdf
PT

Nentwich, M., Schaper-Rinkel, P., Biegelbauer, P., Fröhlich, J., Gudowsky, N. et al. [..] (2015) Zur
Institutionalisierung von Foresight und Technikfolgenabschätzung für das österreichische Parlament.
E

Endbericht. Bericht-Nr. ITA-AIT-3; ITA/AIT: Wien; im Auftrag von: Parlamentsdirektion.

http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/ITA-AIT-3.pdf
CC

Pfeiffer, S. (2015) Effects of Industry 4.0 on vocational education and training. ITA manu:script 15-
04.http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-manuscript/ita_15_04.pdf

Pfeiffer, S. (2017) The Vision of Industrie 4.0 in the Making—a Case of Future Told, Tamed, and Traded.
A

Nanoethics (2017) 11:107–121, DOI 10.1007/s11569-016-0280-3

Schot,J., Rip, A. (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp. 251-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-
1.

Smits, R., Leyten, J. (1988) Key issues in the institutionalization of technology assessment, Futures, Volume 20,
Issue 1, Pages 19-36, ISSN 0016-3287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(88)90039-0.

20
van Eijndhoven, J. (1997) Technology Assessment: Product or Process? Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 54, pp. 269-286

van Est, R., Ganzevles, J. and Nentwich, M., 2015, Modeling Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Relational
Terms. Mediating Between the Spheres of Parliament, Government, Science and Technology, and
Society, Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 24(1), 11-20 < http://www.tatup-
journal.de/english/tatup151_esua15a.php >

van Lente, H. (2012) Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of expectations.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24(8):769-782

Vig, N. J. (1992) Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe: Comparative Evolution. Impact Assessment,
10:4, 3-24, DOI: 10.1080/07349165.1992.9725818

T
Weber, K.M. (2012) FLAs and New Patterns of Governance of Research and Innovation, In: Giesecke, S., van der

IP
Giessen, A., Elkins, S., (eds.)(2012): The role of forward-looking activities for the governance of Grand
Challenges. Insights from the European Foresight Platform EFP, Vienna: AIT Austrian Institute of
Technology, pp. 4-11

R
Weber, K.M., Cassigena Harper J., Könnöla, T., Barcelo, V. (2012) Coping with a fast-changing world: Towards

SC
new systems of future-oriented technology analysis. Science and Public Policy 39:153–165.
doi:10.1093/scipol/scs012

U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

21
Figure caption

Figure 1: Overview of process, products and actors of the foresight and TA pilot study on Industry 4.0 for the Austrian
parliament

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

22