on dnew Technology foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methodst that was held in Seville on 13 14 may 2004,
In addition, the idea was to analyse possible overlapping fields of practice among technology foresight, forecasting, intelligence, roadmapping, and assessment.
and analysis. The process element also highlighted the importance of the management process for foresight studies
They ranged over linking evolutionary theory with foresight to provide F. Scapolo/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1059 1063 1061 new ways of framing studies, applying the concepts underlying marketing tools based on human behaviour to foresight design,
new brainstorming methods, experience curves, applying foresight to the concept of continuous social transformation with responsibility,
voluntary negotiated agreements in major policy areas giving rise to foresight and a revisit to roadmapping and TA and the role and management of experts.
In the discussion it was pointed out that the increasing complexity of the strategic approaches called for a more complex form of foresight.
It was suggested that maybe technology foresight could learn something from the past 20 30 years in socioeconomic study of science and technology,
and especially about issues of substitution, lock in, path dependency. Lock ins occur early in technological trajectories,
whether the foresight community itself was locked-in in methodological terms given the age profile of methods. 7. This issue The articles of this issue only partly cover the richness of the papers delivered at the Seminar.
and on how the utility of outcomes can impact the different forms of FTA (i e. technology foresight, technology assessment, technology forecasting, technology and product roadmapping).
Adaptive foresight: Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies E. Anders Eriksson A k. Matthias Weber b a FOI Defence Analysis, SE-16490 Stockholm, Sweden b ARC systems
accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract Adaptive foresight has been developed at the crossroads of foresight and adaptive strategic planning. Innovation is seen as increasingly complex, interdependent and uncertain and therefore in need of broad and multidiscipplinar exploration and participation.
Compared to conventional foresight, Adaptive foresight thus favours a more modest interpretation of the collective ability to shape the future
and stresses the need to adapt to actions by others. Here it is equally important to be able to exploit the upside of uncertainty as to abate its downside.
The purpose of this paper is to achieve a conceptual consolidation of Adaptive foresight, to review in a fairly hands-on way methodological experience thus far,
Foresight; Technology foresight; Adaptive planning; Real options; Scenario planning; Neo-Schumpeterian economics; Evolutionary economics; Social studies of technology; Policy strategy Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: e. anders. eriksson@foi. se (E. A. Eriksson), matthias. weber@arcs. ac. at (K. M. Weber.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.006 1. Introduction When is a foresight process effective? At the end of a recent foresight and scenario development process in Austria,
dealing with scenarios and options for establishing production consumption chains based on renewable resources, the participants were asked for an assessment of the process
This anecdote suggests that foresight can and does have an impact on decision-making, and that a main criterion of effectiveness is that it should lead to a reconsideration
The foresight tradition that has become quite prominent particularly in public policy takes into account the interactive character of innovation
However, although the dominant model of foresight pursues a more modest level of aspiration than forecasting,
while the collective dimension of foresight is important, 463 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 there is a need to move a step beyond collective processes
if foresight is to have a real impact. In this paper we suggest an approach to forward-looking decision support that addresses the aforementioned shortcomings of conventional foresight.
Under the headline of Adaptive foresight (AF) it combines elements from the foresight and adaptive planning traditions.
It stresses that foresight needs to go beyond the level of a collective process and be brought down to the level of individual actors'strategies.
As a consequence, we propose combining phases of open participation with closed processes of targeted strategy development.
In the case of foresight, we primarily discuss the shortcomings of current practices that motivate AF.
The concluding section provides a critical assessment of the potential of Adaptive foresight which leads us to highlighting some of the methodological challenges that need to be tackled in the future.
we want to develop foresight practices that properly reflect state-of-the-art innovation theory and are also able in turn to contribute to enhancing theoretic understanding of innovation.
while some foresight practitioners are likely to do the same for Section 2. 2. The three constituents of Adaptive foresight Adaptive foresight as discussed in this paper has three main roots or constituents.
Technology foresight is an obvious case simply from the name, as is adaptive planning although that term is much less well established
The foresight tradition has embraced some of these insights. In particular, it has stressed the role of interaction
say, on what RTD projects to fund and which not to fund. 2. 1. Foresight recent developments,
achievements and deficits In the light of insights from research on innovation and technological change, much foresight thinking and practice have struck us as somewhat over-simplistic and in particular over-optimistic in its hopes, e g. with respect to the ability to mobilise innovation system stakeholders to act
according to visions of sustainable development, developed in a participatory foresight process. We, therefore, see adaptive planning as a way to overcome this lack of realism in much foresight work
and bring it closer to a contemporary understanding of processes of innovation and technological change. Over the last ten to fifteen years
forward-looking approaches under the headline of‘foresight'have acquired a prominent role as policy support tools. Foresight has become particularly important in science and technology policy 3, 4,
but also in relation to sustainability and other long-term, uncertainty-ridden policy issues. There are several types of foresight approaches and methodologies,
each aiming at different purposes and stressing different facets. For instance, the distinction between exploratory and normative types of foresight is quite a common descriptor,
as is the degree of participation, or the audience and the purpose addressed. 2 Common to many foresight exercises is the development of either different scenarios,
or at least a single desirable future, to capture possible future pathways. Over the past few years, a number of general trends in foresight practices can be observed that reflect what could be regarded the mainstream of foresight.
First of all, it has moved away from a forecastingtyyp focus on science and technology to an incorporation of first market and then also increasingly social considerations.
Historically this trend is linked to the adoption of the term‘technology foresight'as 2 For a typology to systematise foresight approaches,
As a second important trend, foresight has become an increasingly participatory activity. Initially, foresight activities were mainly based on S&texpert opinion,
but in line with the broadening of the scope of foresight, the notion of expert has undergone a redefinition.
With respect to participation one can observe similar developments in technology assessment where the growing prominence of social, economic,
and belief in the contribution of foresight activities to shaping rather than predicting and controlling the future.
but rather to map the diversity of opinion. 4 Today, by bringing together in a foresight process not only experts,
However, although only very few impact assessments of foresight exercises have been conducted so far, 6 their actual and traceable influence on decision-making seems to vary to a great extent.
In some cases (e g. the UK Foresight Mark I) the influence seems to have been quite important
because priority-setting in RTD policy was directly 3 We here have in mind the UK foresight tradition as begun by Martin and Irvine 7. Today, of course,
and other countries are subsumed often under the‘foresight'heading. For our purposes, however, the distinction between foresight and forecasting is useful. 4 See, for instance,
the pioneering work by Best and collaborators 11.5 Obviously, there are also certain types of foresight exercises that have a less pro-active intention by concentrating on the identification of future challenges
and issues only rather than aiming at solutions. 6 See in particular the experiences made in the UK especially the most recent evaluation of the UK Foresight 12,
in Germany in the context of the Futur process 13, and in Hungary 14.466 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 influenced by its results.
Foresight, as it is practiced today, thus shows a number of shortcomings with respect to its impact on decision-making that can be summarised by the following three points:
The benefits of the shaping power on processes, now emphasised by adherents of foresight, are not only difficult to observe
for instance in terms of deriving basic strategies for dealing with the opportunities and threats that have been identified in the context of foresight exercises.
At the same time, foresight is required increasingly to deliver coherent and coordinated support to the formulation of strategic agendas for action
Especially in policy circles, a more direct and sometimes even operational benefit is asked from foresight than serving as a shaper of mindsets
While the optimism as regards the power of foresight exercises to actually shape innovation processes is founded at least in some qualitative evidence
Several critical questions can be raised with respect to the biases brought in by the foresight process itself: Can we really trust the expectations raised in a foresight exercise?
How can individual actors, and policy-makers in particular, actually protect themselves against the fallacies of false promises
and brought to the fore in a foresight exercise? Should we not be more precautionary when aiming at seemingly desirable scenarios?
A third main shortcoming of foresight relates to the impressionistic nature of many foresight exercises, where workshops and expert panels are taken as the main source of information for constructing scenarios.
and their contributions to be positioned in a comprehensive framework. 7 A fact-based foundation is thus as crucial for the credibility of foresight as a critical assessment of the sources of knowledge.
Therefore, a consolidated integration of analytical and exploratory scientific methods (e g. system analysis and modelling) on the one hand and of participatory processes and interactions with experts and stakeholders on the other would help enhance the scientific credibility of foresight results. 7‘Environmental scanning'along the lines
what is applied in most current foresight exercises. 467 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 Finally it should be pointed out that this criticism against
what we sometimes call conventional foresight has very much to do with the understanding of innovation as complex and interactive processes.
The even more traditional technology foresight standpoint developed from a more linear understanding of innovation does handle many of the challenges we discuss excellently (using best expert knowledge,
But this of course within the confines of linear innovation processes. 2. 2. Adaptive planning The type of (self-criticism levelled in the closing part of the previous section is in no way new to the foresight community,
in our experience, is understood not well by the foresight community, and therefore we claim to provide here a novel integrative framework for taking on several of the main weaknesses of current foresight practice.
As regards uncertainty adaptive planning suggests postponing decisions until we know more about the usefulness of different options that are kept open in the meantime.
and thus at least over time should be able to overcome the impressionism of conventional foresight, while on the other hand not capitulating to the conventional wisdom as might be the case
if too harsh requirements to build on well established scientific results are imposed on foresight At the stage of impressionist knowledge,
Adaptive planning (AP) as one of the constituents of Adaptive foresight belongs to a strand of strategic planning that stresses the limitations to both foreseeing and controlling future developments.
the FOREN guide 17 and the UNIDO Technology foresight Manual 18.468 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 2
Combining insights on limitations to foresight (used here as an everyday term) and control, and the choice to at least theoretically rely on one-stage decision-making,
and learning-byinteraacting 3. Adaptive foresight: predecessors, principles and processes 3. 1. Early attempts of bringing together foresight
and adaptive planning The preceding section outlined the conceptual foundations of Adaptive foresight. The term Adaptive foresight"itself was introduced only recently 28,29
but it is made based on experiences by the authors over the past ten years in a number of European and national foresight and policy strategy processes.
To briefly sketch its prehistory, the first inspirations for Adaptive foresight can be traced back to the EUFUNNDE project FANTASIE,
14 where the complex forecasting and assessment type of approach initially 12 Dixit and Pindyck 23 and Copeland and Antikarov 24 have prepared two very useful texts on real options theory. 13 See for instance the emphasis put on learning processes in protected spaces which is core to the approaches of Strategic
Niche Management 25 and Transition Management 26.14 FANTASIE Forecasting and Assessment of New Transport Technologies and Systems and their Impact on the Environment,
Another experience that led the way towards Adaptive foresight was the use of scenario methodologies in the first Swedish National foresight exercise. 15 Based on these experiences
the first two projects designed according to an embryonic version of the AF approach were ICTRANS16 and the Nordic Hydrogen Energy Foresight. 17 Also the priority-setting approach of the EU-project FISTERA adopted elements
technology and innovation policy at national and regional level. 21 These projects stress in particular the need to understand Adaptive foresight as a continuous monitoring,
and to move beyond collective and participatory foresight processes by also considering targeted and closed process elements in order to bring foresight fully to bear on decision-making. 3. 2. Principles
and process of Adaptive foresight Adaptive in Adaptive foresight can be understood usefully in at least three different ways:
Adaptive with respect to the balance between the ability to shape and the need to adapt to the future.
Conventional foresight approaches have tended to stress the ability to shape the future by initiating participatory processes involving key actors,
Adaptive with respect to the need for making foresight an iterative monitoring and learning process to adjust visions
what follows. 15 For the methodological aspects of the first Swedish National foresight exercise, see Eriksson and Stenström 33.16 ICTRANS The Impact of ICT on Transport,
a project funded by the DG JRC-IPTS and conducted by the ESTO network in 2002/2003 34.17 For the Nordic Hydrogen Energy Foresight,
see Andersen et al. 35.18 FISTERA Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area was funded by the European commission between 2002
K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 It should be clear from the two last bullets above that Adaptive foresight does not come with a onesiizefits-all implementation.
With these caveats, we do believe AF to be a good answer to many of the queries currently harboured in and around the foresight community.
and stakeholders Adaptive foresight is designed to help decision-makers develop strategies. You can do a research project usingmany of the ideas from AF,
or the project leader of the Swedish national technology foresight (a consortium consisting of several governmental, industry and labour organisations),
For the sake of bringing foresight to bear on policy-making we argue that it is necessary to set up policy-preparing exercises that are of a rather closed nature as a complementary element to public and participatory foresight exercises.
Although current foresight practices recognise the importance of client and policy orientation, the explicit inclusion of closed settings as part of foresight methodology is still uncommon among foresight practitioners,
and not widely accepted among policy-makers, either. In early phases of opinion-building, open consultation and participation are necessary to exchange information,
define key dimensions of concern, and improve our ability to sense and assess future developments in their socioeconomic and technological dimensions.
These internal processes need equally the support of foresight specialists and should thus be considered more explicitly by the corresponding communities.
presentation of AF can be found in 29.23 There may be situations where AF practitioners can give this type of support to several participants of a foresight exercise.
p. 187.28 Available on www. ovalmap. com. 29 A dozen tokens of each colour to place freely among clusters is often a practical number. 30 See for instance the experience made in the context of the project FISTERA (Foresight
which Adaptive foresight processes are supposed to contribute. If the principles behind AF are to be effective
The practical tools and methods are available, based on many Fig. 1. Positioning recent forward-looking activities in the framework of Adaptive foresight. 31 31 For Details on these projects
see footnotes 14 21.478 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 years of experience with foresight, adaptive planning
The figure shows to what extent the ten phases of theafmodel have been covered in this selection of recent foresight projects.
which have not been tested frequently yet. 4. Adaptive foresight: assessment and methodological challenges In a nutshell, we see Adaptive foresight as a promising attempt to circumvent the aforementioned Collingridge Dilemma.
More specifically, we believe that it is powerful in overcoming some of the shortcomings of conventional foresight by adopting notions of adaptive planning:
it strengthens the rational basis of decision-making by capturing often implicit assumptions, expectations and underlying values about the future explicitly in different scenario images and corresponding pathways;
However, Adaptive foresight is still at an early stage of development and testing. Further development of the approach is needed particularly in the following three respects:
So far, thinking in terms of real options in the context of foresight is still in an early stage of development.
Principios y Visión General por Países (A panorama of foresight in Europe. Principles and general vision by countries), Econ.
current trends, the state of play and perspectives S&t intelligence for policy-making processes, Research report, IPTS/ESTO, Sevilla, 2001.5 R. Barré, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:
Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, Research report, IPTS/ESTO, Sevilla, 2002.6 M. Keenan, D. Abbott, F. Scapolo, M. Zappacosta, Mapping foresight
the EUROFORE pilot project, Final Report, ESTO/IPTS, Sevilla, 2003.7 B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Research Foresight:
Malmer, B. Mölleryd, Foresight in Nordic innovation systems. Report for Nordic Innovation Centre, Oslo, 2007.11 G. Best, G. Parston, J. Rosenhead, Robustness in practice:
I. Miles, O. Saritas, Evaluation of the United kingdom foresight programme, Final Report, DTI, London, 2006.13 K. Cuhls, L. Georghiou, Evaluating a participative foresight process:
Eval. 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.14 PREST, Evaluation of the Hungarian technology foresight programme (TEP), Report of an International Panel, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2004.15 R. Slaughter, A new framework
for environmental scanning, foresight, J. Futures Stud. Strateg. Think. Pol. 1 (5)( 1999) 441 451.16 J. Voros, Reframing environmental scanning:
an integral approach, foresight, J. Futures Stud. Strateg. Think. Pol. 3 (6)( 2001) 533 551.17 J. Gavigan, F. Scapolo, M. Keenan,
A Practical Guide to Regional foresight, FOREN final report, IPTS, Sevilla, 2001.18 UNIDO (Ed.),Technology foresight Manual. vol. 1 & 2, UNIDO, Vienna, 2005.19 E
Research and Energy in Swedish Politics, Akademilitteratur, Stockholm, 1984.28 K. M. Weber, Foresight and portfolio analysis as complementary elements in anticipatory policy-making, in:
Experiences with Adaptive foresight in Austria, in: M. Munch Andersen, A. Tukker (Eds. Perspectives on Radical changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP.
2000.33 E. A. Eriksson, M. Stenström, Scenarier för Teknisk Framsyn Scenarios for the Swedish Technology foresight, Swedish Technology foresight Report, Stockholm, 1999.34 P. Wagner
Building the Nordic Research and Innovation Area in Hydrogen, Summary Report of Nordic H2 Energy Foresight project, Risoe National Laboratory, Risoe, 2005.481 E. A. Eriksson, K
I. Miles, Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (FISTERA), Key Findings, IPTS, Sevilla, 2006.37 M. Weber, R. Hoogma, B. Lane, J. Schot, Experimenting with Sustainable
Over the past years, he has been contributing to and leading several foresight exercises at European, national, regional and sectoral level,
Apart from foresight methodologies, his main research interests are in the governance of research and innovation systems, in the transformation of large socio-technical systems towards sustainability
Foresight within ERA NETS: Experiences from the preparation of an international research program Ville Brummer a, 1, Totti Könnölä b, 2, Ahti Salo a a Systems analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, P o box
and participatory workshops in promoting foresight activities within ERA NETS and European coordination tools. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Foresight; European research area; Innovation policy; Networking; Robust Portfolio Modeling Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 Corresponding author.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.005 1. Introduction Increasingly, foresight activities exhibit elements of international collaboration and are launched even as multinational efforts (e g.,
not much attention has been devoted the challenges of coordinating foresight activities at the international level 3. Apart from explicitly initiated local,
national or international foresight projects (see. e g. 6), foresight activities can be conducted within RTD programs and other instruments of innovation policy 7. In this paper,
we examine issues in the organization of foresight activities within European coordination tools such as Integrated Projects, Networks of Excellence, ERA NETS, European Technology platforms and Technology initiatives
which seek to foster European collaboration in innovation policy. Specifically we report the design and implementation of an embedded foresight process that was organized in the ERA NET program on wood material sciences 8. Building on the experiences from this process,
we discuss the deployment of Internet-based methods and multi-criteria analyses based on Robust Portfolio Modeling (briefly RPM Screening;
Particular attention is given to the development of a foresight design that responds to scalability requirements (e g.,
and the management of multiple interfaces present in European-wide innovation policy coordination. 2. Foresight within ERA NETS The ERA NET scheme3 seeks to strengthen the coordination
Within the ERA NETS, the general objectives of an embedded foresight process can be defined as i) vision-building for clarifying shared interests and joint benefits of international collaboration,
At best, embedded foresight can overcome some of the administrative barriers in the preparation of international programs;
and embedded foresight activities that help RTD stakeholders recognize how the benefits of international collaboration can outweigh the efforts needed to overcome regulatory, institutional, administrative and cultural barriers.
It is against this background that we describe experiences from the implementation of an embedded foresight process in Woodwisdom-Net, one of the ERA NETS.
iii) identification of practical networking and opening mechanisms for future cooperation, iv) implementation of joint evaluation and foresight activities,
More specifically, the consultation processes sought to respond to the general objectives of embedded foresight in the following ways, among others:
Indeed, despite the strong track-record of national foresights in many European countries, not much work has been done to clarify how foresight elements should be combined to enhance the coordination tools that are crucial to the establishment of the European research area.
selected foresight activities and selected process elements such as decision support for the bottom up thematic prioritization and the formation of new networks may shift the locus of activities closer to national actors.
to develop suitable foresight methodologies for international consultation processes, and to build knowledge on how such processes can be enacted best
We also wish to thank Dr. Leena Paavilainen for her major contribution to the design of the foresight process.
foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (6 7)( 1999) 413 421.2 T. Jewell, International foresight's contribution to globalisation, Foresight The Journal of Futures studies, Strategic thinking and Policy
5 (2)( 2003) 46 53.3 T. Könnölä, A. Salo, V. Brummer, Foresight for European coordination:
special issue on technology foresight in press. 494 V. Brummer et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 4 TFAMWG Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis:
Manag. 14 (2)( 2002) 183 200.7 A. Salo, J. P. Salmenkaita, Embedded foresight in RTD programs, Int. J. Technol.
/9 T. Könnölä, V. Brummer, A. Salo, Diversity in foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, Technol.
Res. 181 (3)( 2007) 1488 1505.11 R. Barré, Synthesis of technology foresight, in strategic policy intelligence: current trends, the state of play and perspectives, in:
J. Econ. 19 (1)( 1995) 25 46.15 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innov.
Mak. 5 (1)( 2006) 65 88.17 A. Salo, T. Könnölä, M. Hjelt, Responsiveness in foresight management:
reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry, Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 70 88.18 J.,Liesiö, P.,Mild, A.,Salo, Robust Portfolio Modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies, Eur.
2005) is Researcher and doctoral student at the Systems analysis Laboratory of Helsinki University of Technology, with research interests in foresight, decision support systems and strategic decision making.
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy. Ahti Salo (M. Sc. 1987, D. Tech. 1992) is Professor at the Systems analysis Laboratory with research interests in decision analysis, decision support systems, technology foresight, and risk management.
He has been in charge of a wide range of foresight and evaluation activities, including the joint foresight project Finnsight 2015 of the Academy of Finland and the National Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes),
as well as various projects for industrial firms, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Committee for the Future of the Parliament.
He has written around 90 professional publications including well over 40 articles in refereed scientific journals. 495 V. Brummer et al./
Regulatory foresight: Methodologies and selected applications Knut Blind Regulation and Innovation Competence Center Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, Germany Berlin University of Technology, Faculty Economics and Management
accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract This paper on regulatory foresight addresses approaches which allow future fields for regulatory action to be identified.
The paper presents three methodologies appropriate for performing regulatory foresight. First, an approach is presented which makes use of science
The paper concludes with a comparative analysis of the three methodological approaches regarding their effectiveness to conduct regulatory foresight. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Foresight; Regulation; Standards; Indicators; Delphi survey 1. Introduction 1. 1. Background In the last few years, the issue of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has become very attractive, in particular among European policy-makers.
defined as regulatory foresight in the narrow sense (see Fig. 1), which was identified as a necessary instrument for policy-makers, especially regulatory bodies,
and technology foresight exercises as instruments for governments, but also national research agencies and businesses, in their efforts to cope with the increasing complexity of new technologies and decision environments, in an increased techno-economic competition worldwide 9. Since the 1990s,
quite a number of major foresight exercises have been launched in many European countries 10,11. The majority of experts consider foresight essentially as a collective and consultative process,
with the process itself being equally or even more important than the outcome. Foresight exercises are ways of obtaining opinions about future developments.
Foresight is different from prognosis or prediction. Implicitly it means taking an active role in shaping the future.
As a possible result, our prognosis of today may be falsified in the future because of a new orientation resulting from foresight.
Older attempts at planning the future by developing heuristic models (in the sense of futurology) were based on the assumption that the future is predefined as a linear continuation of present trends 12,13.
and psychologically make Fig. 1. Regulatory foresight vs. regulatory impact assessment. 498 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 it necessary to anticipate these changes before they become reality 16.
A new understanding of foresight gaining acceptance in the 1990s starting with Irvine and Martin 17 made clear that a targeted shaping of future developments is limited strictly
In the context of policy-making, the most important intentions of foresight exercises are to find out changes in consumer preferences
Consequently, foresight activities can and have been also be applied to regulation, in order to identify both promising areas for different types of regulation and their possible impacts.
In the following, we report some foresight studies, which focus directly or indirectly on the future need and role of regulations.
The crucial difference of our understanding of regulatory foresight is the main focus on the challenges for the regulatory regimes,
whereas traditional technology foresight studies look for new promising fields in science and technology or new trends or needs in the market.
Therefore, some of the traditional foresight studies consider or cover also regulation as a policy instrument, but the main purpose is the reshaping of existing public research and development programmes or launching completely new programmes.
Regulatory foresight in our perception is an instrument for regulatory bodies to identify future challenges for their regulatory regimes in advance
Based on the tradition of regulatory impact assessments and foresight exercises, we define regulatory foresight as strategic activity undertaken by governments
The analysis of regulatory foresight in the narrow sense is based, first, on a broad survey of literature databases and the internet regarding regulatory impact assessments in general,
but also regulatory foresight in the narrower sense, which also allows an identification of the institutions most active in the field.
regulatory foresight in the narrow sense triggered by regulatory bodies is still the exception and often part of larger foresight exercises driven by stakeholders of science and technology policies.
Moreover national SDOS, including some in the USA and in Japan, have been contacted to ask about ongoing impact assessment and foresight activities,
which may not be available on their websites or from their press offices. However, it seems that only some informal small impact assessments have been conducted (e g.,
In addition, we developed methodologies and approaches which represent revisions or adjustments of existing foresight methodologies, but also completely new approaches to identify ex ante major future challenges for regulatory policies.
Finally, we derive requirements for future research. 2. Overview of regulatory foresight methodologies In order to provide a first overview of methods to conduct regulatory foresight,
we start with an evaluation matrix (Table 1) presenting methodologies to assess the impacts of different policy instruments.
matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment
Fahrenkrog et al. 19.500 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Since our focus is mainly on regulatory foresight in the narrower sense,
Instead, we focus on those foresight methodologies for which we are able to provide original empirical evidence,
but which are also adequate for performing regulatory foresight. Consequently, we will consider the following methodologies in the remainder of the paper:
The use of indicators to perform regulatory foresight exercises is just beginning. Since research activities only being performed in basic research are less likely to create challenges for the regulatory framework in the near or mid-term future
patent indicators are suited better to perform regulatory foresight exercises in the sense of identifying dynamic fields of technology.
Nevertheless, only an indicatorbaase approach is able to be the basis for systematic regulatory foresight activities.
These insights can then be used as input for other methodological approaches in regulatory foresight, e g. surveys or Delphi studies. 503 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 3. 2. Surveys 3. 2. 1. Introduction and definition
However, they can be improved further to become a more reliable instrument in regulatory foresight i e. helping to identify needs for regulatory policy intervention. 3. 3. Delphi studies 3. 3. 1. Introduction
The Delphi methodology belongs to the subjective and intuitive methods of foresight. Issues are assessed, on which only uncertain and incomplete knowledge exists.
Delphi-based foresight exercises, therefore, were used repeatedly and increasingly in the context of policymakking building on their capacity to facilitate an alignment of actors'expectations through interactions. 3. 3. 2. Examples
and business developments taken from the Seventh Japanese Technology foresight Report 48, already published in 2001, with regard to their expected time of realisation, their importance, the effectiveness of policy measures, like R&d support,
we could identify only very few and not very systematic foresight exercises regarding future priorities for regulations and standards.
However, the sound experiences of the Japanese and German Delphi studies underline that foresight methodologies can be applied for the identification and setting priorities of future areas of regulation and therefore also of standardisation
Foresight methodologies including scenario, Delphi and even simulation approaches are rather costly and time-consuming, involving numerous experts.
Furthermore, most foresight approaches actively involve stakeholders and their inputs. Foresight methodologies can also be used to assess ex ante the impacts of just released,
but even regulations and standards not yet existing. The classical foresight methodologies enjoy a high acceptance, if they are performed in an adequate way.
Nevertheless, there is a tendency to overburden certain approaches, like Delphi surveys, which may damage their acceptance.
and technology foresights focusing both on active researchers and stakeholders responsible for shaping and performing R&d programmes.
Again in contrast to traditional science and technology foresight exercises representatives from companies, especially those involved in regulatory affairs
and assessment of methodologies Although we cannot refer to a broad sample of regulatory foresights, we have been able to collect relevant experiences from some selected studies
However, this is only a starting point of an assessment of regulatory foresight methodologies. Despite the availability of a number of foresight methods, there is a scope
and a need to look for further methodological improvements towards regulatory foresights focusing on future strategies and actions concerning regulation and the special needs of regulatory bodies.
Especially the use of science and technology indicators to detect future challenges for and fields of regulations is developed not yet.
and assessment of regulatory foresight methodologies Methodology Type Data requirements Strengths Limitations Indicators Quantitative also providing qualitative information Adequate science
The use of Delphi studies for regulatory foresight is faced with the similar strengths and weaknesses of using this approach to identify future trends in science and technology.
the range of stakeholders and experts to be integrated in a Delphi exercise to perform a regulatory foresight becomes wider and more complex,
This short methodological assessment of the few different regulatory foresight methodologies discussed already makes obvious that a simple transfer from applying the methodologies to identify emerging science
and technology fields into regulatory foresight is not sufficient. Significant adjustments and further developments have to be made in order to achieve an adequate methodological base
which allows the performance of regulatory foresights producing valid, reliable and convincing results to be used in policy-making processes,
because regulatory bodies have in general no experiences with foresight activities and a long-lasting process of convincing stakeholders about the need and effectiveness of such approaches are required.
Aspects of regulatory foresights are included already partly in previous, more general foresight exercises. However, this dimension is compared underemphasised to the objective to identify future priorities for public R&d funding
The advances in regulatory foresight have to be directed to strengthen this dimension in general foresight activities but also specific methodologies focusing on regulatory foresight have to be developed,
which address regulation-specific dimensions, like possible implications on competition, indicators, like regulatory indicators, and stakeholders, like regulatory bodies.
9 B. R. Martin, Foresight in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 7 (2)( 1995) 139 168.10 K. Blind, K. Cuhls, H. Grupp, Current foresight activities in Central europe, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 60 (1)( 1999) 15 35.11 J. Landeta, Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences, Technol.
The Delphi method, Rand Corporation, Santa monica, 1967.17 J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners, London, Dover, 1984.18 P. Swann:
, Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.48 Science and Technology foresight Center (NISTEP), The Seventh Technoloy Forecast Future technology in Japan toward the Year 2030, No. 72
Since more than ten years he is conducting studies both in the area of technology foresight, but also in the fields of standards, regulation and intellectual property rights on behalf of the European commission and Ministries in Germany and other countries. 516 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
