5. Conclusions
This article has proposed an analytical framework for exploring the potential impacts of FLAs that rests on different key features (‘dimensions’) of innovation governance sub-systems (IPGSs) and those of FLAs. The main purpose of this endeavour has been to explore which types of FLAs are compatible with which expression of the different IPGS dimensions. To reduce the complexity of this ‘speculative’ analysis, only those FLAs have been explored that aimed at inducing systemic changes. Such FLAs can be instrumental when – from a societal point of view – a radical change would be desirable, for instance to overcome a lock-in into traditional sectors, introduce a regime-shifting technology, or overhaul the IPGS itself (e.g. to change the STI policy rationale followed and/or the overall decision-making culture and methods used to underpin policy actions, improve the efficacy of STI policies and efficiency of public spending). Four different ideal types of ‘systemic’ FLAs have been identified, one of which has been characterised in an abstract way only, while the other three types have been examined in more detail by evaluating real-life FLA programmes. Even though the three cases considered may not perfectly fit the ideal types, they illustrate the usefulness of our proposed analytical framework for understanding the extent to which the ‘match’ between the FLA approach chosen and the key features of the IPGS has contributed to the intended changes in the respective NIS – or the ‘mismatch’, together with some other factors, has restricted the desired impacts.
