Many networks and platforms have dedicated working groups or programmes on foresight, strategic planning and anticipation of societal and ethical hurdles to innovation based on emerging technologies.
which can be produced in evaluation, foresight, or TA projects and comparative studies of national and regional innovation systems etc.
such as with‘anticipatory tools'(foresight exercises, bibliometric analyses, scenario planning, etc); and tools for portfolio and project management. 519 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 The point we make is that technological uncertainty
Manag. 46 (2 march April 2003) 31 40.4 D. Barker, David J. H. Smith, Technology foresight using roadmaps, Long Range Plan. 28 (2
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.28 T. Fleischer, M. Decker,
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.29 S. Kuhlmann, et al.
Interpreting foresight process impacts: Steps towards the development of a framework conceptualising the dynamics of‘foresight systems'Effie Amanatidou a,,
Ken Guy b, 1 a University of Manchester-PREST/MIOIR, Manchester, UK b Wise guys Ltd.,UK Received 28 september 2006;
accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract Foresight programmes are evaluated usually in terms of the achievement of initial objectives and the scale and nature of direct, anticipated impacts,
These are mainly impacts associated with the foresight process itself, i e. with the way in which foresight exercises are designed and implemented.
These impacts typically fall in areas such as: Knowledge creation, diffusion and absorption; Social capital and networking; The evolution of strategies to cope with
'The diversity of the above areas suggests that foresight process impacts should be interpreted through the lenses of epistemology, sociology, political science, management science and organisational theory.
In parallel, given that developments in the above spheres are associated strongly with the evolution of‘participatory knowledge societies',this paper presents an interpretation of foresight process impacts within a conceptual framework that attempts to characterise such societies.
Additionally, such an interpretation is conceived as a step towards the development of a conceptual framework aimed at understanding the dynamics of‘foresight systems'.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.003 The overall aim of the paper is to develop an impact assessment framework for foresight exercises that assesses the degree to
'The paper is based primarily on research carried out during the preparation of a Phd thesis entitled Assessing the contribution of Foresight to a more participatory knowledge society.
The research mainly involved a literature review of available documentation on past and present foresight programmes and their results. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Foresight impacts; Impacts assessment; Logic model; Networking; Actors'alignment 1. Introduction The present article presents results to date2 from research leading towards the production of a Phd thesis entitled Assessing the contribution of Foresight to a more participatory knowledge society.
This topic is of specific interest due to the fact that no common evaluation and assessment approach for foresight exercises has been developed to date.
This is a consequence of the fact that most foresight activities, although sharing some methodological characteristics and similarities in terms of time horizons and audiences addressed,
usually have different aims, scopes and levels of implementation. Thus evaluations typically focus on assessments of
The evolution of a common evaluation and assessment framework for foresight exercises however, could facilitate the identification of good practices irrespective of their specific objectives
and needs that foresight exercises typically try to address. Another level of reference is needed, i e. foresight exercises need to be assessed in terms of their contribution to the attainment of higher level, generic goals.
In this paper, we argue that one higher level of reference is offered by a commonly agreed goal amongst the EU Member States
and compare the performance of foresight exercises. In order for this to happen, however, the major characteristics of these two‘pillars'first have to be examined and understood.
which foresight exercises are implemented and the identification of many of the characteristics of emerging knowledge societies which foresight can affect in both anticipated and unanticipated ways.
As a starting point, a conceptual framework is presented which outlines the major characteristics of emerging knowledge societies. This is based on a review of the available literature.
A further review of the literature on foresight impacts showed that many of these are in linewith the societal shifts needed
In such amodel, foresight has to be seen as a systemcomprised of a number of basic elements, namely actors, objectives, processes, inputs and outputs.
and adopted in foresight exercises if these impacts are to be attained intentionally. Furthermore the foresight system's interaction with the wider environment has to be studied
in order to identify the factors affecting the success of the whole process. A model is needed thus that links all the different variables and reference levels.
a‘logic model'approach is used also to provide checklists of the foresight inputs and activities likely to lead to the attainment of both lower and higher level system goals,
while foresight impacts seem to relate to both sets of developments. The major elements reported in the literature can be grouped under three broad categories:
6 is shown by the lines connecting the factors. 3. Contribution of foresight to the emerging knowledge societies The above conceptual framework facilitates the identification of areas where foresight impacts may contribute to the strengthening
which focused on the reported impacts of foresight exercises both intended and unintended. The available literature7 on foresight impacts notes that it is mainly the foresight process impacts that contribute to certain characteristics of the emerging‘knowledge society'.
'These impacts, however, are not usually the direct or intended ones. The networking effects of foresight programmes enhance collaboration
and networking between organisations (universities, research institutes, firms and service-providers), which is held generally to improve the prospects for successful innovation.
Foresight is referred increasingly to as such a process, with‘hidden'or often overlooked benefits relating to learning at the level of individuals, organisations and communities.
Foresight is one such method since it deals with uncertainty by requiring the development of alternative Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the emerging‘knowledge societies':
foresight also facilitates the adoption of a holistic approach in terms of identifying possible impacts within and among different scenarios.
Foresight also acknowledges that knowledge is constructed‘socially'.'8 By bringing together all interested parties it facilitates knowledge diffusion and production among diverse groups with different backgrounds.
Foresight can have an impact on the ways in which policy-making deals with uncertainty and lack of knowledge by promoting more participatory governance.
Foresight also encourages the emergence of the new types of affiliations and alliances needed within a knowledge society by engaging actors with different backgrounds,
foresight can help break down some of the barriers between science and society both crucial developments if the emerging knowledge societies are to cope with social, environmental and intellectual complexity.
Foresight can thus nurture the development of multidiscipllinarit in research as well facilitate the creation of informed publics.
and identify those elements affected by foresight exercises can be regarded as a generic objectives model for foresight exercises likely to contribute to a more participatory‘knowledge society'.
Table 1 groups together many of the reported objectives and impacts associated with foresight exercises under the headings of‘intermediate'and‘lower level'goals. 5. Approach for developing an impact assessment framework It is possible
Typically, logic model approaches start with specific programme goals and objectives and attempt to identify paths to potential goal attainment by treating foresight programmes as systems comprised of a number of basic elements, namely context, actors, processes
This approach Fig. 2. Objectives hierarchy for foresight exercises contributing to a more participatory‘knowledge society'.'545 E. Amanatidou, K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539 557 has to be modified,
it is more relevant to ask whether particular impacts in line with the generic Table 1 Grouping of foresight reported objectives and impacts a under‘intermediate'and‘lower level'goals Reported foresight programme objectives Reported
impacts of foresight exercises Intermediate goals: IP: Creating informed publics Interest from the general public DU:
and practice for thinking about the future Overcome path dependency and lock ins Collective learning through an open exchange of experiences Accumulation of experience in using foresight tools and thinking actively about the future Lower level goals:
and influence their appearance within specific foresight contexts (seen as systems comprised of actors, objectives, processes,
An approach for developing an impact assessment framework the foresight system. b: An approach for developing an impact assessment framework the wider environment. 547 E. Amanatidou,
K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539 557 principles that a foresight exercise should adopt
when assessing foresight exercises. Fig. 3a demonstrates how the approach starts from the inner cycle in the diagram,
focusing first on impacts before moving‘outwards'(or‘backwards')towards the basic elements of the foresight system.
in order to identify the factors enhancing specific foresight impacts. A review of the available literature on factors affecting the results
and impacts of foresight programmes11 identified four main groups of factors: Institutional structures and settings (including the configuration of actors
and institutions and communication between them) Governance and policy-making culture (including levels of commitment) Sociocultural factors in relation to public participation and the perceived utility and eventual impacts of foresight exercises The nature of innovation processes and the‘innovation system'in
'The focus thus shifts from what happens within a foresight system (Fig. 3a) to a new focus on the way a foresight system affects,
A conceptual framework of this nature sheds light on the dynamics of foresight programmes and helps identify the principles
and criteria that govern the design and implementation of foresight programmes capable of contributing to a more participatory‘knowledge society'.
then the possibility of building a common impact assessment framework for foresight exercises based on their contribution to a more participatory‘knowledge society'irrespective of their specific context
and implementation of foresight programmes by adding design and implementation principles to the existing evaluation issues of efficiency,
effectiveness, appropriateness, sustainability and additionality. 6. Understanding the dynamics of foresight systems in three countries A first attempt to understand the dynamics of foresight systems can be based on the evaluation of three foresight exercises;
the third round of the UK foresight programme, the second round of the Swedish foresight programme and the eforesee project in Malta.
The evaluation of the latest UK Foresight programme 5 sheds light on several direct and indirect impacts and highlighted several factors that affected the overall success of the UK foresight exercise.
It should also be noted that the literature on technology assessment programmes is also relevant to the case of foresight programmes.
Moreover, the strength of a foresight culture and capability was increased further and a‘reservoir'of knowledge was created
the evaluation revealed that institutional settings and attitudes within public institutions strongly affected expectations and the uptake of foresight results.
the evaluation confirmed the stance that foresight exercises should have a specific‘client, 'and thus a specific focus, rather than multiple and diverse clients and objectives.
Changing political circumstances and the turnover of senior foresight managers or members of foresight directorates were mentioned also as factors adversely affecting the positioning of foresight in the policymakkin arena.
The evaluation of the second round of the Swedish Technology foresight initiative 6 found that indirect effects on foresight capabilities were marked more than the anticipated impacts of foresight results on policy-making.
It was a technology foresight exercise explicitly aimed at the industry and education ministries and their agencies.
and audiences if foresight is to affect policymakking 549 E. Amanatidou, K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539 557 The evaluation was critical of the intervention logic,
The evaluation suggested that foresight might need to be done in parallel at different levels with different customers.
if foresight is to affect policy. The Swedish foresight initiative also demonstrated that the timing of an initiative has a critical influence on its ability to affect policy.
The evaluation also highlighted the fact that broader environmental factors can influence the success of a foresight exercise.
Important factors in Sweden were the fact that the value of a consensus view is considered higher than in other political systems (a positive factor;
The evaluation of the eforesee Foresight exercise in Malta 7 highlights even more the value of the foresight process as an agent of cultural and behavioural change.
The evaluation also revealed the value of a one of the less-emphasised benefits of foresight exercises,
The Maltese case is also a good example of the high returns on investment associated with foresight training.
This training not only ensured the quality of foresight process and its results, but also helped embed a wider and deeper foresight culture
and offered an example to other countries embarking up the foresight learning curve. Based on the above findings, detail can be added to the two previous figures via the addition of elaborated sets of governing factors and design principles and criteria.
These are shown in Fig. 4a and b. 7. From the impact assessment framework to the logic model The above framework can be enriched further by findings from studies of other foresight exercises in different countries,
thus providing comprehensive lists of criteria and important factors in different conditions and environments. 550 E. Amanatidou, K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539
Impact assessment framework foresight system (based on the cases of UK, Sweden and Malta. b: Impact assessment framework wider environment (based on the cases of UK, Sweden and Malta.
551 E. Amanatidou, K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539 557 Given that all the elements of a foresight system can now be identified,
b) coping with greater Fig. 5. An impact assessment framework for foresight systems capable of enhancing a more participatory‘knowledge society'.
the above discussion can shed some light firstly on the criteria/principles that should govern the elements of a Foresight (internal) System,
As regards the Foresight (internal) System, the actors can and should be characterised by interinstittutiona communication and collaboration, mutual interests and low dependence.
The foresight objectives should reflect goal alignment and the mutual benefits and interests of the interested actors.
in order to define the degree to which foresight exercises can achieve impacts in networking and actors'alignment.
that play a role in the degree to which foresight promotes effective networking. Referring to the innovation system,
while foresight impacts seem to relate to both sets of developments. The examination of foresight process impacts within a conceptual framework characterising participatory‘knowledge societies'provides indications that foresight can contribute to the emergence of such societies in terms of:
Knowledge creation, absorption and diffusion and through these to the increasingly dominant role of knowledge within modern societies;
'This suggests that it is possible to assess foresight exercises in terms of their contribution to more participatory‘knowledge societies,
'which provides the higher level of reference needed to assess foresight exercises irrespective of their specific aims, scopes and levels of implementation.
The development of a common impact assessment model requires a clear understanding of the way foresight influences specific impact areas.
This in turn presupposes that the dynamics of foresight exercises are understood. A model is needed thus capable of explaining the interdependencies and interrelatiionship between foresight system elements such as actors, processes, inputs, outputs and impacts,
as well as the interaction of the system with the broader socio-technological-economic-political environment. The model presented in Fig. 3a
if foresight exercises are to result in impacts in line with the evolution of participatory‘knowledge societies'.'It also helps in the identification of external factors affecting the success of the foresight system as a whole.
Evidence from three foresight cases (UK, Sweden, and Malta) indicates that it is possible to identify internal criteria
and external factors to build up an understanding of how a foresight system works (Fig. 4a and b). Needless to say,
it is essential to complete the model with findings from other foresight exercises in different countries,
thus providing comprehensive lists of criteria and important factors in different conditions and environments. This model can then direct the development of a common impact assessment framework based on the‘logic model'approach.
when studying foresight impacts as a whole. Further work in this area will study other impact areas from the perspective of relevant theories
and factors that foresight exercises need to take into account when targeting such impacts. This will be done in parallel with the continued study of other foresight exercises
and a series of interviews with foresight specialists to complete the development of the model describing the dynamics of foresight exercises in different contexts.
The applicability of the resulting impact assessment framework (s) will then be tested via case studies. 555 E. Amanatidou, K. Guy/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 539 557 References 1 E. Amanatidou,
The self-enforcing circle of knowledge society characteristics, foresight impacts and participatory governance, Paper presented at the 9th ICTPI conference, Santorini, June 18 21 2006.2 K. Cuhls,
L. Georghiou, Evaluating a participative foresight process:‘‘Futur the German research dialogue',Research Evaluation 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.3 R. Barre, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:
A. Tubke, et al. Eds.),), Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, 2001, IPTS-ESTO Report EUR20137EN. 4 N. Brown, B. Rappert, et al.
Foresight as a Tool for the Management of Knowledge Flows and Innovation (FORMAKIN), Final report under the TSER Programme Stage II, 2001.5 H. Cameron, L. Georghiou, M. Keenan,
I. Miles, O. Saritas, Evaluation of the United kingdom Foresight programme, Final Report, 2005.6 E. Arnold, S. Faugert, A. Eriksson, V. Charlet, From foresight to consensus?
An Evaluation of the Second Round of Swedish Technology foresight, Teknisk Framsyn, 2002 2004,2005. 7 J. Cassingena Harper, L. Georghiou, The targeted and unforeseen impacts of foresight on innovation policy:
the eforesee Malta case study, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 2 (1)( 2005) 84 103.8 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Evaluation of national foresight activities:
assessing rationale, process and impact, Technological forecasting and Social Change 73 (7)( 2006) 761 777.9 A. Havas, Context, focus and coherence of foresight programmes, Lessons from the Czech republic and Hungary, Paper
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.10 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes,
Sept. 2006.15 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Towards a Typology for Evaluating Foresight exercises, Paper 2 in proceedings EU US Seminar:
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.16 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology Futures analysis:
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.17 M. Ladikas, M. Decker, Assessing the Impact of future-Oriented Technology assessment, Paper 1 in proceedings EU
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.18 Technopolis, et al. Using Logic models, The results of a study exploring how logic models can be used to develop a methodological framework for the high-quality assessment of IST-RTD effects at the Strategic Objective level, Commission Contract No 29000,2006. 19 W. W. Powell, in:
Research interests include the areas of research evaluation and impact assessment, foresight, national innovation systems and policies, scientific advice for policy-making and risk governance.
but those can be added during an actual foresight process. 7 In any case, this article does not report on the results of an actual foresight process on universities:
it is a proposal to apply the foresight toolkit in this field by following a new approach.
The futures developed here are just to demonstrate how to use these proposed methods, and its potential benefits for various stakeholders.
From a different angle, there are fundamental differences between foresight programmes, on the one hand, and future-oriented academic or consultancy projects, on the other.
Second, the content or some elements of the futures drafted here can be used as one of the inputs for dialogues among stakeholders in actual foresight processes.
An actual foresight process in turn, might have many different outcomes. Following the usual distinction in the literature, we can think of‘process benefits'and‘products'.
The type of intended outcomes always depends on the design (objectives) of a foresight programme, i e. if it is mainly a process-oriented exercise, a productorieente one,
that is, keep universities as the‘unit of analysis'when conducting a foresight process. Another one is to emphasise the importance of several driving forces
however, does not imply that national (regional) factors can be neglected in actual prospective analyses (e g. strategic planning or foresight programmes).
For an actual foresight process, aimed at assisting decision-making either at the level of universities regional, national or EU (ERIA) policies, a much more refined set of ideal types should be developed, based on a thorough understanding of the main features of existing and hypothetical future universities.
initiating pilot foresight (prospective) projects; etc. The national 579 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 governments, international organisations and associations of universities can provide methodological and financial support for these initiatives.
Foresight is among these techniques, and it offers additional advantages, too, and thus it is recommended to use this particular approach to underpin strategies for universities.
By definition, foresight is a participatory process and thus the accumulated knowledge and experience, as well as distinct viewpoints and approaches of the major stakeholders involved in these strategic dialogues,
Further, foresight process aligns the participating actors around emergent agendas, resulting in a coordinated mobilisation of people, resources and actions.
M. Thorne, ed.,Foresight, OST, DTI, London, 1999.38 EC, Third European Report on Science & Technology indicators 2003:
in the future, Foresight, OST, London, 1999.41 B. Alesi, S. Bürger, B. Kehm, U. Teichler, Bachelor and Master Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany, Federal Ministry
His academic interests are in economics of innovation theory and practice of innovation policy, and technology foresight. In 1997 2000 he was Programme Director of TEP, the Hungarian technology foresight programme.
He has participated in a number of international research projects on STI policies, innovation and transition, as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,
and given invited lectures at international conferences and workshops. He has advised national governments and international organisations on the above issues. 582 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582
FTA provides a common umbrella for the foresight, forecasting and technology assessment communities. These closely related communities play an important role in guiding policy
Lessons from Regional infrastructure foresight, deals with a foresight exercise in connection with strategic infrastructure planning. They argue that foresight allows addressing trade-offs related to context uncertainties,
value conflicts and sustainability deficits in a structured way. The paper introduces a specific procedural proposal
and foresight capacity that utilizes the strengths of and interplay between FTA and RA approaches is considered a necessity at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland for being truly innovative
's account of The BMBF Foresight process. This well designed process breaks new ground in being concerned explicitly with enabling foresight as a sustainability asset for Germany's status as a R&d-innovation leader with specific elements also aimed at four innovative targets:
new R&d domains; crosscutting opportunities; new fields for strategic partnerships; and priorities for innovation policy. As well, the interplay between foresight and policy is defined further and elaborated,
wherein foresight engages policy-making on six levels (informing; facilitating implementation; embedding participation; supporting new policy definitions;
reconfiguring policy structures and as a dynamic process, symbolizing policy evolution-change. In many respects the BMBF foresight demonstrates how in practice many of the new approaches are actively engaging a changing view of policy for the knowledge economy.
Volkery and Ribeiro address in their paper, Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors, the effectiveness of scenario planning in public policy-making.
Reducing the Democratic deficit in International foresight Programmes: A Case for Critical systems Thinking in Nanotechnology; examines how vitally important the foresight objective of inclusiveness in the embracement of diverse stakeholders is for the credibility of an innovation process.
Using contemporary examples associated with the challenges of nanotechnology, they develop the case for ensuring that foresight offers a democratic rather than just a technocratic input to the future and to the policy processes
which govern the societal choices that will be required. In their paradigm a systemic one foresight is a critical way for institutions to examine
and advance technology in ways that are responsive to society's needs and concerns through the definition of problems and boundaries that must be respected.
Foresight and Innovation strategy, Defence R&d Canada, and Chair of the Foresight Synergy Network of Canada.
Prior to joining DRDC, he was Director of S&t Foresight for the Office of the National science Advisor to the Prime minister of Canada and Leader of the Office of Technology foresight for the National research council of Canada.
He holds a MSC from Cornell University in Design and Environmental Analysis, and has over 30years of federal government service in Canada.
She was the leader of the VTT Technology foresight and Technology assessment in 1999 2008 being also the Deputy Technology manager of the knowledge center since 2007.
Lessons from Regional infrastructure foresight E. Störmer A b. Truffer A d. Dominguez b, W. Gujer b c, A. Herlyn b, H. Hiessl d, H. Kastenholz e
The present paper argues that foresight informed strategic planning, allows addressing trade-offs related to context uncertainties,
the Regional infrastructure foresight method (RIF) and illustrates its potential virtues through an application to urban water management planning in a Swiss region (Kiesental.
Regional foresight Strategic planning Participation Infrastructure 1. Infrastructure planning and foresight In OECD countries, most infrastructure sectors such as electricity supply, water supply and sanitation were constructed over the 20th century by implementing a narrow
& Social Change Foresight has its strengths in addressing broad ranges of future conditions by adopting participatory and discursive approaches.
Yet, in particular Technology foresight has often been restricted to identifying future context conditions in order to scrutinize the robustness of specific strategies
technology and innovation policy 6. Foresight is however much less well developed in strategic planning contexts as it often misses the link between analyzing uncertainties to assessing options
we want to build on foresight methods for improving strategic decision making in infrastructures through the method of Regional infrastructure foresight RIF.
Relative to Technology foresight, we emphasize the implementation side of socio-technical systems, i e. we want to analyze under which conditions the receptiveness for innovative solutions could be increased,
especially in contexts that are otherwise rather averse with regard to innovation 8. Foresight methodologies should therefore not only inform the identification of future context conditions
we will propose a foresight based approach that allows for considering a maximum range of uncertainties.
A similar approach has been presented by Dominguez et al. 2. They utilize infrastructure foresight to identify technological and organizational capability deficits.
In the present paper, we aim at explicating the contribution of the foresight approach to the identification of trade-offs.
In the next section, we lay the ground for combining strategic planning in infrastructures with foresight methodologies. Section 3 presents the procedural outlay of the Regional Infrastructure method and introduces concepts for addressing the trade-offs relative to context uncertainties, conflicts and sustainability deficits.
The final section gives an outlook on further application domains for foresight and strategic planning in infrastructure sectors. 2. Breaking up path dependencies in strategic infrastructure planning 2. 1. Characteristics of infrastructure sectors Infrastructures represent a specific challenge to strategic planning methods.
a more elaborate and open approach to strategic planning seems very timely. 2. 2. Foresight supporting infrastructure planning Foresight methods have been developed over the past decades to explicitly address substantial uncertainties in technology development.
Following a widely shared definition, foresight aims at improving future-oriented decision making through the early detection and assessment of emerging trends and drivers of change 18.
In line with this shift of attention, foresight was conceived mainly as an informing policy task until the 1970s,
More specifically, foresight related thinking was applied to three key elements of decision processes: context conditions, options and value considerations.
Whereas foresight has often been run in participatory settings in the past, an explicit consideration of differing value perspectives is more recent.
In corporate contexts, innovation oriented foresight focuses on long term product development strategies or market prospects. Here, foresight is geared towards‘exploration'of longer term strategies in innovation management 31.
Mannermaa 22 emphasizes its role for increasing the scope of strategic alternatives in order to allow for exploring consequences of impossible strategies,
Cagnin and Keenan 19 dub this type of approach as mode 2 foresight that allows the consideration of fundamental changes in paradigms
Mode 2 foresight is about questioning the existing system, initiating disruption, undermining existing world views, and raising the spectre of the incredible 19,
Foresight and scenario planning have been applied to infrastructure sectors in different forms. As a benchmark, we will briefly review typical applications in the field of transportation as this represents the most widely addressed empirical application case.
Framing a strong exploratory approach to strategic planning Based on these experiences, we may now frame the problem of informing strategic infrastructure planning by foresight as follows:
Foresight, according to this understanding, is not planning itself, but is rather an important first step in an overall strategic planning process (Coates 1985 cited in 25).
We therefore accept the call of the Adaptive foresight approach 7, p. 464, that there is a need to move a step beyond collective processes
if foresight is to have a real impact. We take this proposition as a strong invitation to explicitly specify the organizational and procedural interfaces between the exploratory phase in a strategic planning process
and the utilization of selected assessments'results. 3. The Regional infrastructure foresight method In view of this specific problem constellation and based on the theoretical arguments introduced above,
the Regional infrastructure foresight method (RIF. RIF aims at providing an explorative perspective on strategic decision making and adopts an explicit participative stance.
and Popper 57,58. 3. 1. 1. Pre foresight and recruitment Phase in the pre foresight phase, the overall aspirations of the RIF process are defined:
At the end of the process, the results are transmitted to the decision makers who then decide about specific strategies. 3. 1. 2. Foresight generation Phase in the generation phase, the exploration of context uncertainties,
We developed a specific methodological layout of a strategic planning process the Regional infrastructure foresight method that builds on a combination of foresight approaches that focus on exploratory context scenarios, option assessment and multiple perspectives.
By carefully defining the interface between the foresight process and the formal strategic planning process we could considerably improve the range of critical context conditions 7. As experienced in our empirical application case,
Furthermore, RIF offers an approach to explore disruptive alternatives in the mode 2 foresight concept.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 Acknowledgements The project Regional infrastructure foresight was funded by The swiss National science Foundation within the National research Program 54 Sustainable development of the Built Environment.
I. Miles, M. Butter, G. Sainz, Global Foresight outlook 2007, Mapping Foresight in Europe and the rest of the World, EFMN, Manchester, 2007.7 E. A. Eriksson, K
. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight: navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)( 2008) 462 482.8 A. Salo, K. Cuhls, Technology foresight past and future, J. Forecast. 22 (2 3)( 2003) 79 82.9 P
. A. Wilderer, Some thoughts about future perspectives of water and wastewater management, Water Sci. Technol. 49 (5 6)( 2004) 35 37.10 T. Larsen, W. Gujer, Waste design and source control lead to flexibility in wastewater management, Water Sci.
Human choice and climate change resources and technology, Battelle Press, Columbus, 1998.13 M. S. Jørgensen, U. Jørgensen, C. Clausen, The social shaping approach to technology foresight
)( 2006) 1389 1396.18 I. Miles, J. Cassingena Harper, L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, R. Popper, The many faces of foresight, in:
The Handbook of Technology foresight. Concepts and Practice, E Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2008.19 C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, Positioning future-oriented technology analysis, in:
Future-oriented technology analysis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.20 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:
) 25 33.25 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2 3)( 2003) 93 111.26 F. Berkhout
, J. Hertin, Foresight futures scenarios, Developing and Applying a Participative Strategic planning Tool, Greener Management International (37 Special issue on Foresighting for Development), 2002, pp. 37 52.27 G
Anal. 8 (1999) 311 321.28 M. P. e Cunha, P. Palma, N. G. da Costa, Fear of foresight:
knowledge and ignorance in organizational foresight, Futures 38 (8)( 2006) 942 955.29 W. Xiang, K c. Clarke, The use of scenarios in land-use planning, Environ.
lessons from sustainability foresight in German utility sectors, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (9)( 2008) 1360 1372.31 A w. Müller, Strategic foresight Prozesse strategischer Trend-und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Druckerei Zentrum, 2008.32
F. Scapolo, A l. Porter, New methodolgical developments in FTA, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds.
Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Heidelberg, 2008.33 R. Barré, M. Keenan, Revisiting foresight rationales: what lessons from the social sciences and humanities?
Future-oriented technology analysis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.34 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight 7 (3)( 2005) 31 47.35 H. A. Linstone, Multiple perspectives:
An Investigation into the Long-term challenges and Opportunities for the UK's Strategic Highway Network, Highway Agency for England, London, 2003.42 Office of Science and Technology, Intelligent Infrastructure Futures, Foresight Directorate
European commission (Ed.),The European forseight monitoring network. Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.45 I. Chatrie, J. Rachidie, AGORA 2020 Transport, housing, urbanism and risk, in:
European commission (Ed.),The European forseight monitoring network. Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.46 H. Thenint, L. Lengrand, Démarche Prospective Transport 2050 For a better French
European commission (Ed.),The European forseight monitoring network. Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.47 H. J. van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, Strategies for European
in transdisziplinären Projekten, GAIA 1 (2007) 41 45.56 R. Barré, S&t Foresight as a Collective Learning process In view of Strategic decision making:
Overview and Interpretative Framework, European Science and Technology observatory (ESTO), Paris, 2001.57 I. Miles, Appraisal of Alternative methods and Procedures for Producing Regional foresight, EU Kommission, Brüssel, 2002.58 R. Popper,
How are selected foresight methods? Foresight 10 (6)( 2008) 62 89.59 M. Rask, Foresight balancing between increasing variety and productive convergence, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (8)( 2008) 1157 1175.60 J. Galla, U. Kopp, A. Martinuzzi, E. Störmer, Focus on actors initial experiences with system constellations in theory-based evaluations, Z. Eval. 7 (1)( 2008) 35 73.61 J. Mayers, Stakeholder power
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011