and SRI International's foresight capabilities by providing a systematic means for surveying the broad external environment for change vectors.
No foresight function can operate with confidence without a disciplined process for spotting new patterns of change
For 25 years, SRI International and subsequently SRI CONSULTING BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (SRIC-BI) have used a scanning system to provide foresight capabilities
scanning has played an essential role in SRIC-BI's foresight capabilities by providing a systematic means for surveying the broad external environment for change vectors.
No foresight function can operate with confidence without a disciplined process for spotting new patterns of change
Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy Luke Georghiou a,,*Jennifer Cassingena Harper b a Manchester Institute of Innovation research, MBS, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9pl, UK b Malta Council for Science
and Technology, Villa Bighi, Bighi, Kalkara CSP 12, Malta 1. Introduction The predominant focus of foresight 1 is frequently national research policy and strategy,
and helped to shape the international understanding of the function of technology foresight as having a role in priority setting 2. It remains a key application for large Delphi exercises as witnessed by the recent Chinese survey 3. Foresight is used also to inform
and innovation policy and strategy together and use of foresight for more joined-up policies and defining the appropriate policy mix.
A gradual awareness and general agreement for moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches is giving foresight an enhanced role in policy design tailored to particular context
Recent trends in research and innovation policy have opened new opportunities for the application of foresight. The emergence of coordinating instruments such as technology platforms is normally crystallised around a technology roadmap;
Available online 18 november 2010 A b s T R A c T The paper addresses the application of foresight to research and innovation policy and strategy.
Recent trends in research and innovation policy have opened new opportunities for the application of foresight. Systemic and demand-side policies require a shared vision on the part of purchasers and suppliers.
The role of foresight in such contexts needs both to be enhanced and better understood. An increasing structural focus for foresight exercises is associated not only with broader R&i system reform but also with an engagement with new-wave innovation policies.
The success of demand-side measures such as cluster policies and the use of procurement or regulation to stimulate innovation is dependent upon the formation of a common vision between the supply
and demand sides, opening the possibility for the application of foresight approaches. We note the emergence of a combination of corrective, disruptive and creative roles. 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
The role of foresight in such contexts needs both to be enhanced and better understood. In the corporate world, the rise of open innovation has emphasised the need for firms to work with their collaborators
and shape the future of their innovation environment 6. Firms are increasingly playing a role in defining innovation policy due to the rise of demand side approaches and the convergence of corporate and structural foresight.
In the open innovation systems firms are concerned less with stand-alone type foresight and more about how corporate strategy interfaces with the emerging research and innovation policy scenario.
Daheim and Uerz 7 at the Second FTA Conference in Seville conference noted the emergence of open foresight as a trend,
Fig. 1 summarises the results of an analysis of 50 foresight exercises described in the European foresight monitoring Network (EFMN) database. 1 These exercises listed a total of 199 objectives
This reflects a type of foresight which preselects one or more areas of science or technology and uses foresight approaches to assess their potential
and the actions needed to take them forward. The second group is distinguished by focus on a particular policy domain, economic or otherwise,
and use foresight to develop policy (or business strategy). The third group is associated almost always with the verb‘‘to foster
Many exercises have an explicit goal of developing foresight methodologies or the capacity to use those methodologies and this forms the next grouping.
The last distinct category is that of public engagement in foresight. The‘‘Other''category consisted of some objectives
From this analysis we may conclude already that foresight has moved on from the type of objective setting that typified the large national foresight programmes of the 1990s.
In this paper we aim to question the‘traditional'stand-alone type of foresight activity which aims to develop research priorities.
This has been manifested in a growing structural focus for foresight. Beyond this if we expand the vision to innovation policy the focus is very much upon using foresight methods to achieve alignment of the principal stakeholders around an agenda for the future.
This trend has begun to be mirrored in research policy-making where to a certain extent we()TD$FIG 10.6%5. 5%9. 5%9. 5%11.5%14.0%17.0%22.0%25.0%20.0%15.0%10.0
and capacity building Priority setting for S&t Network building Supporting policy or strategy development Analysing the future potential of technologies Fig. 1. Analysis of objectives of 50 foresight exercises. 1 Thanks
in Section 3 we catalogue the emergence of structural foresight and in Section 4 its growing role as an instrument for aligning actors in innovation.
and to speculate on the future role for foresight in research and innovation policy. 2. The problem with priorities...
2 If the endpoint of a foresight activity is to be a priority, it is useful first to consider what that term means.
In the realm of foresight, the process of list generation is taken over by the foresight process itself.
Using some combination of foresight methods ideas are generated and filtered until a list exists that may be subject to prioritisation.
Normally the full appellation of foresight would be reserved for a process that went beyond this to involve a systematic consideration of socioeconomic and technical drivers
Later critical technologies exercises in Europe such as The french Key technologies Programme and the Czech Foresight exercise introduced these key foresight characteristics 9, 10.
In the planning for the first UK Technology foresight Programme this system was articulated further to introduce the dimensions of cost and timescale 13.
if using foresight to identify priorities: Generation of initial list: It should be clear that without a preceding foresight stage this is the product of historical inertia
or straightforward political lobbying. In the process of generating the list it is likely that the types of information needed to make decisions will also be collected.
The 2 This section of the paper was developed initially for a presentation Foresight in Priority Setting Towards a European Initiative at a workshop‘‘Shaping the European Dimension of Foresight"28 february 1 march 2005, Brussels ftp://ftp
. cordis. europa. eu/pub/foresight/docs/brainstorming session1 intrropdf. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 245 issue is how actionable such lists are.
At one stage in the UK it was proposed that university block funding for research (QR) from the Higher education Funding Councils should be allocated differentially between fields according to their correspondence with priorities emerging from the foresight programmes.
Substantial effort is put into the preparation of technology landscaping or foresight documents as an input to the strategy process 17.
While this is fertile ground for foresight activity, the actual extent to which it is used systematically to support these processes is probably at a fairly low level. 3. Structural foresight As the analysis of motivations showed,
foresight frequently has a structuring role. A distinction may be drawn between structural activities which are intended to build on a thematic or priority-setting approach for example building action networks around the priorities and foresight exercises
which have as their main aim a structural objective. In the former case, as shown above, the first UK Technology foresight Programme had evolving objectives
which gradually shifted their stress from straightforward priorities to an emphasis upon network building on the industry-academic nexus. New priorities can themselves have structural implications;
that same exercise was seen as an instrument to shift resources towards the emerging opportunities for life sciences.
An example of a more explicitly structural foresight is The french Futuris exercise. This was led industry
Structurally oriented foresight most often seems to be invoked at times of change. For Europe, a wave of foresight activity was associated with the accession of new EU Member States from the so-called‘‘transition economies''.
''This we see for the smaller accession states (Cyprus, Estonia and Malta) with the explicit aim of the eforesee project as being‘‘to examine the potential role of foresight in dealing with the structural changes to the economy that accompany the accession process,
as well as the integration of accession states into the European research area (ERA)''19. Havas and Keenan have noted a tendency in such countries for science systems to be disconnected from innovation
the CEE region has probably been focussed the most upon the‘‘critical technologies''style of foresight with prominent examples including successive Russian exercises 21,22
and the series of exercises in the Czech republic 9. On the other hand Havas and Keenan stress the important role that foresight has had in contributing to the realignment of the science system through bringing it to the fore of discussion and highlighting the missing links
For example the Romanian Science and Technology foresight 2005 sought to reconstruct the RDI system around long-term perspectives.
and the participants and operators of foresight exercises who confront the realities of the need for structural change and a process-oriented approach.
Another kind of structural foresight has an actor-focus. For example this was an explicit objective of an EU project
''A number of foresight exercises have addressed actors. Universities have been a particular focus. A review for the 2006 FTA conference noted an increasing use of scenarios for the sector in the face of a number of pressures
The question needs to be raised on how effective structural foresight is in achieving change. In the university sector the scenarios of change have attracted public attention
or strategic space for universities to act upon the insights arising from foresight. The reviews cited above also showed that it was rare for individual institutions to have meaningful foresight activities.
A similar finding has been reported for the corporate sector where Cuhls and Johnston indicate that foresight may be initiated to provoke organisational change
but has limited its impact by internal resistance 26.4. Foresight aligning actors in innovation policy Structural issues are also to the fore in an emerging important application of foresight
its use to align actors around innovation objectives. Simpler definitions of innovation present it as‘‘the successful exploitation of new ideas''.
Rollwagen et al. describe this process in Deutsche bank which they summarise as‘‘Foresight explores and assesses business opportunities as well as upcoming strategic,
Philips and Decathlon) use foresight in a catalytic role to stimulate and enhance their innovation processes by improving communication
The use of foresight approaches to build linkages for innovation represents a focus for foresight activity in innovation.
It has long been understood that foresight in particular has a role in building shared strategies see Georghiou in 1996:‘‘
and Johnston‘‘wiring up the innovation system''through strengthening connections within it 4. Foresight becomes a systemic innovation policy instrument as defined by Smits
Considering these issues there is a prima facie case for the application of foresight approaches on a substantial scale.
what most foresight approaches are about. How then does this relate to trends in innovation policy? An emergent opportunity for the application of foresight is in demand-side innovation policy.
This represents a reorientation of innovation policy which attempts to match the traditional supply-side measures with new demand-side measures.
While the direct use of foresight was documented not at the time in that example it is interesting to note that one of the most successful has evolved now into an ERA NET‘‘Wood Wisdom''dealing with the integration of forestry and wood material science and engineering.
This has made use of foresight in the form of internet-based decision support tools. As an example of embedded foresight, Brummer et al. indicate three roles for such an application of foresight:(
i) vision-building for clarifying shared interests and joint benefits of international collaboration, (ii) networking for mobilizing the RTD communities in different countries
In this context, embedded foresight activities promote the development of internal collaboration. Cariola and Rolfo link this to an evolution from hierarchical organisational structures with tangible assets to network knowledge-based organisational forms as a backdrop to the formulation of innovation policy 36.
The application of foresight approaches to these areas has been explored by Blind who focuses on approaches which identify future fields for regulatory action
and technology fields into regulatory foresight is not sufficient. Rather, it is argued that significant adjustments and developments are needed to the methodologies,
To understand the relevance of these trends for foresight it is necessary to unpack the factors
The use of foresight approaches allows procurers to open up their thinking to technical or other solutions
Use of network building foresight approaches can help to redress this situation. In sum, as Wilkinson et al. put it in a guide to procurement for innovation:‘‘
and of communicating these to suppliers brings to the fore the idea of using foresight to create a common vision as a framework in
future for foresight in research and innovation policy Rationales for foresight activity have evolved in recent years to feature a range of research
This developments have important implications for foresight and particularly for foresight at a time when its utility and potential are being realised both a structuring tool and for the more traditional priority-setting.
In this respect foresight can be regarded as one of a number of policy tools for L. Georghiou,
J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 249 engineering major changes required in EU research and innovation policy in the coming years.
foresight is instrumental in informing the design and implementation of research and innovation policy with three distinctive roles:
toward integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (3)( 2004) 287 303.2 T. Kuwahara, K. Cuhls, L. Georghiou, Foresight in Japan, in:
The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 170 183.3 R. Mu, Z. Ren, S. Yuan, Y. Quiao, Technology foresight towards 2020 in China:
the practice and its impacts, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 287 307.4 B. R. Martin, R. Johnston, Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system a review of recent
government exercises, Technological forecasting and Social Change 60 (1)( 1999) 37 54 (18pp..5 J. Gavigan et al.
FOREN Guide Foresight for Regional development Network A Practical Guide to Regional foresight, European commission, December 2001.6 H. Chesbrough, The era of open innovation, Sloan Management Review 44 (3)( 2003.
7 C. Daheim, G. Uerz, Corporate foresight in Europe: from trend based logics to open foresight, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 321 336.8 OECD, Choosing Priorities in Science and Technology, OECD, Paris, 1991.9 K
. Klusacek, Technology foresight in the Czech republic, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2004) 89 105.10 K. Klusacek, Key technologies for the Czech National research Programme, in:
Paper Presented at the UNIDO Technology foresight Summit, September, Budapest, 2007.11 T. L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Mcgraw hill, New york, 1980.12 Office of Science and Technology and PREST
, Returns to Research and development Spending, HMSO, London, May 1993.13 SQW/PREST 1994 Prioritisation Criteria, A Paper to the UK Technology foresight Steering Group. 14 M. Keenan, Identifying generic technologies at the national level:
the UK experience, Journal of Forecasting 22 (2003) 129 160.15 A. Rip, A j. Nederhof, Between dirigism and Laissez-faire:
/18 R. Barre',Foresight in France, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M'Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),
The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 112 130.19 P. Crehan, J. Cassingena Harper, Foresight in smaller countries, in:
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),The Handbook of Technology foresight:
Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 216 236.20 A. Havas, M. Keenan, Foresight in CEE countries, in:
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M'Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),The Handbook of Technology foresight:
Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 287 318.21 A. Sokolov, Identification of national S&t priorities areas with respect to the promotion of innovation and economic growth:
Human and Societal Dynamics, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 92 109.22 A. Sokolov, Russian Critical technologies 2015, European foresight monitoring Network Brief, 79.
a methodological experiment, Technological forecasting and Social Change 75 (4)( 2008) 558 582.26 K. Cuhls, R. Johnston, Corporate foresight, in:
, S. Schneider, Improving the business impact of foresight, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 339.29 P. Becker, Corporate Foresight in Europe:
A First Overview, Commission of the European communities, EUR 20921, October 2002, p. 10.30 L. Georghiou, The UK Technology foresight Programme, Futures 28 (4)( 1996) 361.31
R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1/2)( 2004) 4 32.32 P. Warnke
, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument learning from science and technology studies, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barre'(Eds.
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 250 35 V. Brummer, T. Ko nno la, A. Sahto, Foresight
experiences from the preparation of an international research program, Technological forecasting and Social Change 75 (4)( 2008) 483 495.36 M. Cariola, S. Rolfo, Evolution in the rationales of foresight in Europe
, Futures 36 (10)( 2004) 1063 1075.37 K. Blind, Regulatory foresight: methodologies and selected applications, Technological forecasting and Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516.38 J. Edler, L. Georghiou, Public procurement and innovation resurrecting the demand side, Research policy
Foresight tackling societal challenges: Impacts and implications on policy-making§T. Ko nno la A f. Scapolo b, 1, P. Desruelle c, 2, R. Mud, 3 a Impetu Solutions
55 Zhongguancun East Road, Beijing 100190, PR China 1. Introduction In the realm of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) 1 that encompasses foresight,
forecasting and technology assessment approaches foresight is perhaps the most comprehensive one suitable for providing policy support to address major societal challenges.
Foresight can be seen as a crucial function to prepare for the future; not only to identify the promising technological pathways,
The locus of foresight activities has tended to shift from positivist and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system,
While foresight is used commonly in connection with the public-Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Available online 19 november 2010 A b s T R A c T Foresight activities are conducted often to anticipate major societal future challenges
it mainly provides evidence on how foresight impacts on policy-making and societal developments. The paper elaborates a framework with key design dimensions related to foresight process and outcomes in order to characterise different kinds of foresight projects.
The framework is applied for the empirically based ex post analysis of selected foresight projects around the world
in order to clarify (i) different roles for foresight in the innovation system and society and (ii) its respective impacts and implications on policy. 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.§
§The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European commission or of its services,
for instance, mean that it has not been easy to evaluate the impacts of the foresight project (for instance,
4 6). We elaborate further a foresight framework developed by Ko nno la et al. 7 to characterise different foresight projects
and international foresight projects around the world in order to clarify (i) different roles of foresight in the innovation system and (ii) its respective impacts and implications on policy and societal developments.
Section 2 elaborates the conceptual framework for the characterisation of different foresight projects. In Section 3, some national and international projects are examined and characterised within the framework,
of which results are discussed in view of impacts on policy-making. Section 4 provides some conclusions and discussion on the possible advantages of the proposed framework for the characterisation of foresight projects as contribution to the policy-making process. 2. Characteristics of foresight projects To understand the impacts of foresight in the system,
it is beneficial to identify different types of foresight activities. The design of foresight activities addressing societal challenges can benefit from the structured approaches that help to identify the expectations concerning the management of the foresight process
and final outcomes 8. The systemic understanding of innovation processes has challenged conventional technology driven forecasting practices and called for new participatory foresight approaches that address also the consideration of diverse perspectives, formation
of shared knowledge and examination of alternative futures. Foresight activities are seen also increasingly as crucial functions in order to prepare for the future
not only to identify the promising technological pathways but also to engage relevant stakeholders and create common visions
and action plans 2, 9. Furthermore, foresight processes can often be seen as a pertinent design phase for the creation of newvalue networks that are based on novel combinations of technologies, organisational partnerships and institutional arrangements.
Along these lines Ko nno la et al. 7 have developed a framework for the purposes of strategic management of a foresight portfolio in a contract research organisation.
and elaborated for the purposes to characterise foresight projects conducted around the world in relation with major societal challenges.
The first dimension addresses the type of main outcomes of the foresight project referring to its different kinds of impacts on the policy and society at large.
In each of the four dimensions archetypal dichotomies are conceptualised for the further characterisation of a foresight project.
informative vs. instrumental outcomes Foresight outcomes consist of outputs, results and impacts of the project. Outputs refer to the products and services, tangibles and intangibles.
Informative outcomes refer to the use of foresight process and dedicated methods to improve the awareness and understanding of present and future challenges of the innovation system and its parts.
Thus, the informative outcomes do not refer to the expectations that a foresight activity would necessarily lead to specific actions.
but also to the use of foresight to support the specific foreseen decision-making situation, for example relatedto resource allocationor the formationof strategicpartnershipsor joint actions.
Foresight activities often focus on the production of consensual future perspectives that refer to the creation of common understanding on priorities, relevant collaborative networks and future actions.
fixed vs. autonomous The foresight process can be taken up with different kinds of management approaches, which are driven often by the diverse expectations laid on the project.
when the people participating in the foresight process typically have heterogeneous backgrounds, which occurs when various interest groups (industry, academia, government, NGOS, etc.)
are engaging in the foresight process. This means that special attention must be paid to the organisation of the process
Furthermore, those in charge of the foresight process are likely to benefit from the sharp definition of their role and approach in the management of the process.
both dimensions may play important role in the design and management of a foresight process. 2. 4. Chosen emphasis in stakeholder engagement:
Extensive stakeholder engagement in a foresight process in which experts are involved also allows stakeholders to become better aware of signals of change
Other benefits that could be achieved through the Foresight process include creation of linkages among participants, development of a shared understanding on the various issues at stake,
The opportunity for exclusive participation in foresight may also be highly important since this mode allows confidentiality and trust among the participants.
Hence, it is likely that in the foresight designs both exclusive and extensive elements are present. 3. Empirical findings on foresight projects addressing societal challenges 3. 1. Introduction Major societal challenges have been addressed by the foresight community for already several decades.
In this paper we focus our analysis on three areas that have been addressed increasingly by the foresight community:
T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 254 Table 1 Selected foresight projects addressing societal challenges.
Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement Nordic ICT Foresighta 17 Informative Evaluations of key ICT applications, Nordic scenario set in context of ICT development, scenario
Foresight Canadae Informative Identification of emerging and frontier technology domains addressing subjects such as future fuels, bio-health innovation, geo-strategic systems, animal
Generation of innovation ideas in Finnish Foresight Forumf 20 Informative Identification of future developments in nutrigenomics,(ii) health care and social services and (iii) services for the provision of personal experiences.
Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research Areag 21 Informative Identification and SWOT analysis of socio-techno-economic trends, drivers and challenges;
Policy recommendations were validated thought interviews of about twenty experts in ICT or environmental policy The 8th Japanese technology foresight program Informative Understanding future S&t challenges.
Instrumental The 8th Japanese technology foresight program aims to provide necessary information for making the 3rd S&t basic plan of Japan.
Consensual The 8th Japanese technology foresight program consists of consensual Delphi survey, scenario, bibliometrics and needs analyses.
Fixed The methodology for the 8th Japanese technology foresight program is fixed at the beginning of the project, including: Delphi, Scenario, bibliometrics,
and the priority setting of science and technology based on technology foresight. Extensive There was an extensive engagement of diversified stakeholders from government, academia and industry.
The Revision 3rd Korean technology foresight Informative S&t developments Instrumental The‘‘Revision of 3rd Korean TF''aims to strength the linkage between the foresight and policy-making
National Technology foresight in China Informative Understanding future S&t developments and needs. NTFC aims to provide also necessary information for making five-year plan of science & technology development.
Technology foresight towards 2020 in China Informative TF2020 aims to provide necessary information for making long term strategy for science and technology development in China,
While the authors consider diverse approaches valuable in the realm of foresight to address societal challenges, for the purposes of this paper,
the empirical part focuses on foresight and its respective implications on policy. A quick scan was performed on foresight projects that address security, sustainability and/or information society issues.
The suitability of the identified projects was discussed and the list of projects for further analysis was agreed.
The attempt was not to make a global scan of the conducted foresight projects in these fields,
The projects are described shortly in Table 1. The conceptual dichotomies of the foresight dimensions defined in Section 2 provide a structure for the analysis assuming
of course, that foresight project consists of identifiable elements for the classification. In practice, foresight activities often consist of some elements of the both sides of these dichotomies,
and altogether they form the combination of a case specific process design. The positioning of individual projects in the framework clarifies the methodological decisions and the rationales of stakeholder engagement.
Once the projects are positioned in the framework they provide an overview of the whole portfolio of foresight projects analysed that supports building the more holistic view of the selected activities.
The foresight projects listed in Table 1 can be classified according to the foresight design and management dimensions discussed in Section 2
the selected foresight projects (described in Table 1) can be positioned in four different quadrants (consensual and informative;
Agora and Innovations foresight. 3. 2. Visions foresight (consensual perspectives and informative outcomes) Visions foresight can be characterised as consensual,
Among the foresight projects examined, IRRIIS Scenario work was part of the European integrated project that provided improved understanding of the developments in the security field.
The consensual scenario work was()TD$FIG Fig. 1. Foresight projects positioned in view of the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental) and future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse.
In the Nordic H2 Energy Foresight the major challenge was to create shared understandings on future hydrogen-based energy systems between different stakeholder groups representing five different countries.
For foresight activities on emerging issues that are not yet proven to be of high policy importance it may be difficult to engage policy-makers in the process.
In the Nordic H2 Energy Foresight specific efforts were made to engage policy-makers but with limited immediate success. This may be partly due to the initial positioning of the projects as informative rather than instrumental,
National Technology foresight in China and Technology foresight towards 2020 in China as well as National Technology roadmap in Korea were all strongly informative processes that were initiated to capture experts'views on future S&t challenges Hence,
In practice, the technology foresight in Korea and China has borrowed lots of experiences from technology foresight projects in Japan. 3. 3. Priorities foresight (consensual perspectives
and instrumental outcomes) Priorities foresight can be characterised as consensual and instrumental processes that create common understanding on priorities, networks and/or future actions as well as support the specific foreseen decision-making situation.
policy interests may also enter in the foresight process and create rigidities and difficulties to provide new and fresh perspectives for change.
Among the foresight projects examined, FISTERA: Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (2002 2005) was an FP5 IST Thematic Network coordinated by JRC-IPTS
and managed in collaboration with DG()TD$FIG Fig. 3. Foresight projects positioned in view of the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental), future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse) and in the coordinate system of stakeholder engagement (extensive and exclusive) and management
(autonomous and fixed). 5 Japan is the pioneer of technology forecasting and foresight, and has completed 8 times technology foresight activities
since 1970.6 FTA projects in China in broad sense can be traced to‘‘The 12 Years Science Development Planning''made in 1956,
when over one thousand top scientists participated in the work ranging from technology selection, priority setting, subject arrangement, resource distribution,
''The FISTERA methodology inspired several national foresight projects, notably in Austria and Hungary. A review of FISTERA by NISTEP underlined the relevance of FISTERA's approach to formulate national science and technology policies also in Japan 24.
The Foresight project conducted in Canada through a series of collaborative projects aimed at emerging and frontier technology domains that could be important to national policy development process for the next ten years.
and how S&t foresight and strategic S&t investments in the new Centre for Security Science could help to acquire those capabilities.
The outcomes of consensual and instrumental technology foresight activities in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China have played increasingly important role in the policy-making process for science & technology and innovation.
the 8th technology foresight provided important support for making the 3rd basic plan for science and technology of Japan.
In the UK, the Development, Concept and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) a Directorate General of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) conducted a foresight process that produced as a key output a report‘‘the DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme
and be used to stimulate a wider discussion among stakeholders. 3. 4. Agora foresight (diverse perspectives
and informative outcomes) Agora foresight can be characterised as informative processes with diverse future perspectives that explore diverse ideas
Such agora type of foresight activities provide a basis for a wide societal debate among different interest groups even with strongly diverging views on the desired future.
The Nordic ICT Foresight was designed to provide a relevant platform to discuss in a structured way the future of ICT in Nordic countries.
The foresight projects identified in Asia seemed to be all consensual; hence this would suggest that foresight projects with open-ended diverse visions of the future are not common in these countries.
However, the diversity of viewpoints in Asian countries may come from the richness of activities. Foresight activities in Asian countries are conducted in different levels,
such as national level, regional level, sector level and firm's level. T. Ko nno la et al./
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 262 3. 5. Innovations foresight (diverse perspectives and instrumental outcomes) Innovations foresight can be characterised as instrumental processes with diverse
The first one was an internal foresight project in VTT Technical research Centre of Finland. The key foci of the VTT Water Research Roadmap were the creative combination of wide-ranging water related issues at VTT as well as the generation of new R&d initiatives.
The second project identifiedwas a foresightprocess attachedtofinnish Foresight Forum, whichengageddifferent stakeholder groups, encouragedthemtosubmit ideas on prospective innovations,
consensual foresight objectives and diversity considerations are complementary perspectives which are needed both in attempts to enhance the performance of innovation systems:
4. Conclusions In the past years, increasing attention has been paid to the relevance of foresight for policy-making by coming up with different characterisation and typology of different foresight projects (for instance, 7, 12,26, 27.
While the framework is suitable for both the ex-ante and ex post analysis of foresight projects,
we elaborate and attest its validity in the context of ex post analysis of a number of foresight projects focusing on sustainability, security and information society and their contribution to policy-making.
Our analysis supports the thesis that different classes of foresight projects have respective different types of impacts on policy and society.
and management of foresight projects have to look for cautious balance between different design dimensions in order to accommodate different stakeholder expectations.
This is almost a natural function or characteristic of any foresight project that stems from the process itself,
Foresight with instrumental outcomes is likely to be designed in order to support the decision-making process and lead to development of actions and therefore also its usefulness and effectiveness for supporting policy-making is more evident.
Tracing the impacts of foresight is often very difficult. In many cases, policy-makers do not refer to the sources used
This is not surprising as one of the important foresight objectives are the priority-setting and common vision-building.
which are addressed often as strengths of many foresight methods and approaches. It may often be appropriate to design a foresight process as informative
when it addresses a new or emerging (technological field or when the issues are characterised by high uncertainties.
Foresight influences all participants in the process as well as their networks. Furthermore, the outputs are reused often''by actors not considered in the design phase.
This systemic nature of foresight may have several ramifications for instance, rationales for co-financing projects. The results of our ex post analysis of foresight projects confirm the wide set of expectations laid on foresight activities.
We expect that the developed framework can facilitate the discussion about the expectations and the management of foresight projects and about its impact on policy-making and society at large.
There is a clear need for further research on evaluation of foresight impacts not only with the purpose of doing the evaluation of a project
but mainly to draw conclusions on how foresight can be improved as an instrument contributing to knowledge creation for policy and decision-making in more general.
The conceptual and empirical work on the evaluation of T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 263 foresight is ever more important to position foresight as one of the key supporting tools for policy-making to anticipate how major societal challenges ahead can be addressed such as those tackled in this paper, e g. security, sustainability and information society challenges.
The correct positioning and management of foresight is crucial to link it better with policymakkin formulation,
which is increasingly based on evidence base at all policy levels and for all policy domains. Furthermore, in order to better address major societal challenges with foresight and other FTA ACTIVITIES
we consider that another relevant future avenue might be to enhance the international foresight collaboration in terms of exchange of experiences and the implementation of common foresight projects.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to Jack Smith, Ramon Compan o'and Ioannis Maghiros as well as to anonymous reviewers for their contributions to improve the paper.
in innovation policy, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1)( 2004) 4 32.3 T. Ko nno la, G. C. Unruh, J. Carrillo-Hermosilla
reflections from a hydrogen foresight project, Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 259 265.4 L. Georghiou, The UK technology foresight programme, Futures 28 (4)( 1996) 359
377.5 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Evaluation of national foresight activities, assessing rationale, process and impact. technological forecasting and social change, Technological forecasting and Social Change 73 (7)( 2005) 761 777.6 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo
, The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.7 T. Ko nno la, T. Ahlqvist, A. Eerola, S. Kivisaari
, R. Koivisto, Management of foresight portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organisation, Technological Analysis & Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.8 M. Cariola, R. Secondo, Evolution in the rationales of foresight
in Europe, Futures 36 (10)( 2004) 1063 1075.9 T. Ko nno la, V. Brummer, A. Salo, Diversity in foresight insights from the fostering of innovation ideas
, Technological forecasting and Social Change 74 (2007) 608 626.10 A. Salo, T. Ko nno la, M. Hjelt, Responsiveness in foresight management:
reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2004) 70 88.11 O. Helmer, Looking Forward:
A Guide to Futures research, Sage, Beverly hills, 1983.12 R. Barre',Synthesis of technology foresight, in Strategic policy Intelligence:
current trends, the state of play and perspectives, in: A. Tu bke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada (Eds.
and the implications for regulation towards an approach for the information society, COM/97/623, December 1997.17 Nordic ICT foresight, available at:
http://www. vtt. fi/inf/pdf/publications/2007/P653. pdf (2009-11-10). 18 Nordic H2 Energy Foresight for the Nordic Council
lang=2&oiid=8661&pid=572 (2009-11-10). 20 Finnish Foresight Forum (in Finnish), available at:
Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area, available at: http://fistera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/(2009-11-10). 22 Future impacts of ICTS on Environmental sustainability Project, available at:
Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (FISTERA) Key Findings, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-22319-EN, Seville, 2009, available at:
id=1431 (2009-11-10). 24 A. Fujii, Foresight on information society technologies in Europe, in:
id=1919 (2009-11-10). 26 L. Georghiou, Third generation foresight: integrating the socioeconomic dimension, available at http://www. nistep. go. jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat077oe. html (2009/11/10), in:
Paper Presented at the Proceedings of International Conference on‘Technology foresight, Science and Technology'foresight Center of NISTEP, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.27 A. Havas,
Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes, For Society Transnational Foresight ERA NET, 2006. T. Ko nno la et al./
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011