extrapolate to offer a range of future possibilities, and give our interpretation. As with the Model T, standardizing greatly expedites production
and the Finnish innovation Fund (Sitra) has sought to promote a constructive dialogue on impending societal challenges by establishing a So-called future Forum.
for example, once during the electoral period, the Government produces a report on some salient aspects of the future of Finland.
In the Parliament, this report is debated extensively by the Committee of the Future which produces a written response to it;
4 implied that the external expert panels should have full autonomy in their future-oriented deliberations,
support To support for the future-oriented deliberative process units of analysis characterised by key concepts were defined to provide structure to the panel discussions
and to assist in the explorattio of future developments and their implications for scientific and technological competences.
or a development that could contribute to the realisation of changes with significant implications for future R&i activities.
and (ii) the significance of the factor (i e. how significant was this driving force for future R&i activities?.
and (ii) the future demand for this expertise (i e. how strongly will the generation and of knowledge in this focus area of competence respond to the societal and industrial needs in 2015?).
relations to emerging societal and industrial needs, with illustrations of future possibilities by way of concrete manifestations (such as innovatiions) Often,
Technology and Innovation7 in fields that are important to the future of Finnish society and business and industry.
the Finnish innovation Fund, launched a So-called future Forum already at the time when Finnsight was running.
but not formal links were established (e g. in the sense that the results of the Future Forum would have depended on those of Finnsight.
when making their contributions to panel work. 4. 3. Consensual vs dissensual development of recommendations Consensual development of recommendations can be understood as the creation of jointly characterrise priorities, collaborative networks and future actions,
and coalitions that may reflect rivalling visions or even incompatible perspectives on the future (Könnölä,
Introduction From priority-setting to societal challenges in future-oriented technology analysis Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) is derived a term from a collective description given to the range of technology-oriented forecasting methods and practices by a group of futures researchers and practitioners
1. Called‘‘technology futures analysis''in its original form, the central aim was to bring into a single frame a family of methods
A central reference was the CD-ROM Futures research methodology, version 2. 0 edited by J. C. Glenn and T. J. Gordon
many of these methods have far wider application in futures work than in the domain of technology
While this is a powerful undercurrent in the broader discourse of futures work it does not elsewhere form the central focus.
In fact Slaughter made it clear in his review of a previous decade of futures studies that‘‘As we look ahead it becomes increasingly clear that technical innovation on its own is not the main issue.''
forecasting and other dimensions of futures studies remains important even if the field is not ready to tolerate a new collective term. 2 This leads to the second persistent theme.
what they describe as the‘‘covenant between futures methodology and the needs of long-term strategic management and policy''.
Ian Miles has sought to position foresight in relation to the broader canon of futures studies 8 . While acknowledging similarities to la prospective,
he sees the main distinctive features of foresight from futures studies as lying in a link to policy actions,
Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Futures journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.001 eventual outputs. Two special editions of journals reflected the continuing methodological interest
but crossed this with an interest in the evaluation of impacts and in the use of FTA in two domains, business and higher education 9, 10.
which individuals who address the future share their knowledge and link, present and discuss information and insights with each other.
The special edition concludes with two contributions that sought to take advantage of the confluence of futures expertise brought about by the conference.
and analysed by future foresight activities. Concluding the edition, in a short essay, Johnston and Cagnin review the main findings from a series of interviews about the status of FTA as an activity with nine personalities attending the FTA conference.
Introduction/Futures 43 (2011) 229 231 230 In Spring 2011 the fourth FTA Conference will take place.
but represents a dynamic section of the futures community. References 1 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis:
toward integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (2004) 287 303, in press. 2 T. J. Gordon, J. C. Glenn (Eds.
review of a decade's futures work, Futures 21 (1989) 447 465.4 H. A. Linstone, Corporate planning, forecasting,
and the long wave, Futures 34 (3 4 april 2002) 317 336.5 F. Scapolo, New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis the 2004 EU-US seminar, Technological forecasting
and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: a pressing and long-term challenge, Futures 41 (2009) 67 70.8 I. Miles, From futures to foresight, in:
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R Popper (Eds.),The Handbook of Technology foresight:
future directions in future-oriented technology analysis: future directions, in: C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barre'(Eds.
Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 163 169.12 O. Saritas, C. Cagnin, A. Havas,
Available online 19 november 2010 Introduction/Futures 43 (2011) 229 231 231
Tailoring Foresight to field specificities§Antoine Schoen a,,*Totti Ko nno la b, 1, Philine Warnke c, 2, Re'mi Barre'd, 3, Stefan Kuhlmann e, 4 a Universite
Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Futures journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.002 The first section of this paper presents the background of this new development concerning Foresight methodology and synthesises the need for a proper tailoring of Foresight.
The second section proposes an analytical view of the European research and innovation system and identifies the catalytic role of Foresight in this framework.
, academic debate and mutual learning among both academics and practitioners within project contexts such as Forlearn, 6 Costa22, 7 Forsociety8 and intense exchange with other approaches such as futures studies
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 233 All these results point to the fact that diverse innovation areas need diverse governance tools
deals with the elaborating of the vision of the future of the system, in putting in place its instruments and regulations, its broad objectives and budget;
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 234 with extensive formal and informal consultation of stakeholders including scientists and research organisations.
Priority-setting supports the identification of common future actions and the efficient allocation of resources 28.
Foresight in support to building shared visions of the future reduces uncertainties and helps synchronize the strategies and joint actions of different stakeholders (e g. 39).
Foresight can support the exploration of alternative futures and respective techno-institutional arrangements 27. All three Foresight objectives have a particular significance in relation to the governance arenas.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 235 objectives matrix (Table 2). In each cell of the matrix, the Foresights do not have the same actors involved, nor the same perspectives, nor the same objectives.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 236 For instance, the progressive sliding of the field of biocatalysis away from‘catalysis'within chemistry towards biotechnologies illustrates an actual reconfiguration of a current knowledge area that is combining splitting and merging
The European Technology platform (ETP)‘‘Plants for the Future''is a stakeholder forum for the plant sector,
Two other key elements are contributing to the future of this research field. 1) EU institutions have had a prominent legal role by delaying the introduction of GM crop in Europe.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 237 and those ingredients traceable to their source. In 2004, the European commission has lifted a 5-year moratorium on genetically modified produce.
‘‘Plants for the Future'',the above-mentioned European Technology platform is an example of coordinating institution for this collaboration.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 238 5. 1. 3. GMP: towards a Tailored foresight In the field of GM plants research we find a strong growth rate
The activities of the Plants for the Future technology Platform have been taking exactly this direction. Its Strategic research Agenda is based on a set of challenges
and goals that was developed with a broad range of stakeholders including consumer and environmental organisations (Plants for the Future 2005).
firstly, exploration of multiple GM futures in the broader context of agricultural system and secondly, localisation and diversification of the GM research agenda.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 239 5. 2. 3. N&n: towards a Tailored foresight In the realm of nano-related research we see a strong growth rate and at the same time a strong divergence.
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 240 (including in variable geometry schemes. It follows that the Foresight function,
Laat, Scripts for the future: using innovation studies to Design Foresight tools, in: N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster (Eds.
Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2000.8 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:
the case of the European union, Journal of European Public policy 3 (3)( 1996) 318 338.22 S. Kuhlmann, Future governance of innovation policy in Europe three scenarios, Research policy 30
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 241 43 S. Kuhlmann, ERA-Dynamics Project Strategic Report 2006 2007:
/Futures 43 (2011) 232 242 242
The role of scanning in open intelligence systems Kermit M. Patton*Scan Program, SRI CONSULTING BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, Menlo Park, CA 94025, United states Received 13 may 2004;
SRIC-BI 1. The premise Predicting the future is impossible. The inherent unpredictability of technology development and commercialization processes, legal and regulatory developments,
. which directed the first industry-wide futures research program, the Trend Analysis Program of the American Council of Life insurance.
A futures orientation among decision makers is necessary to take advantage of foreknowledge of change. Eric D. Beinhocker and Sarah Kaplan in Mckinsey Quarterly 6 talk of creating bprepared mindsq
or for cultivating a futures orientation in employees and managers. The companies that currently incorporate externalities well usually depend on a leader at the top of the corporation who performs the scanning function on a continual basis,
has an inherent futures orientation, and imports the knowledge that he or she develops into the decision-making process intuitively.
and for nurturing a futures orientation more broadly in an organization. 3. The process The scanning process is necessarily a continuous one.
Other abstracts look to the long-term future. Examples include abstracts that speculate about currently gestating technologies with the potential eventually to have an impact similar in scope to that of the Internet in the past 20 years.
and mind-set for cultivating a future orientation in any organization. The process also provides a tonic against the entrainment of thinking that discourages innovation and adaptation.
To bdistributeq a future orientation throughout client companies both push and pull distribution mechanisms are necessary.
Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Futures journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.003 the planning and emergence of knowledge-based clusters is informed often by a vision;
new demand-side innovation policies such as the use of innovative public procurement and regulation to pull through innovations requires a shared vision on the part of purchasers and suppliers.
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.
The most popular group is one we have called analysing the future potential of technologies. This reflects a type of foresight which preselects one
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.
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
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 244 can see a polarisation of approaches between, on the one hand,
This paper also recommended that that the output from the prioritisation process should provide strategic advice about how to change the future rather than just a simple list of priorities for expenditure,
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 245 issue is how actionable such lists are.
and is likely to have increased an role in future programmes. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 246 relevant to end-users (e g. personal computing.
Programmes are couched not in terms of particular areas of scientific discipline or expertise, nor are targeted they directly on specific business units in the corporate structure.
which sought to examine the future of‘‘Key Research actors''in the European research area encompassing civil society, researchers, small and medium enterprises, universities, research and technology organisations, multinational enterprises, national and regional governments 23.
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 247 success for business at least is defined very clearly in market terms,
By collaborating in their thoughts about the future, organizationsmay be placed better to anticipate the actions of their customers, suppliers and others, such as regulators,
J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 248 actors which are important for innovation.
which identify future fields for regulatory action but also opportunities for regulation to foster the development of new markets 37.
future for foresight in research and innovation policy Rationales for foresight activity have evolved in recent years to feature a range of research
J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 249 engineering major changes required in EU research and innovation policy in the coming years.
and innovation policy offers a robust future for these approaches. For the community which has developed them the challenge is to ensure that their standards of rigour
References 1 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis: 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:
http://www. efmn. eu. 23 M. Akrich, R. Miller, Synthesis Paper The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area, Commission of the European communities, EU 22961 EN
Future-oriented technology analysis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, 2008.25 A. Havas, Devising futures for universities in a multilevel structure:
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
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 250 35 V. Brummer, T. Ko nno la, A. Sahto, Foresight
, 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
L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Futures 43 (2011) 243 251 251
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
Foresight can be seen as a crucial function to prepare for the future; not only to identify the promising technological pathways,
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
Whereas the paper reports some findings on the future of challenges especially related to sustainability, security and information society,
Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Futures journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:
10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.004 sector agenda setting, it is also ever more common practice in business, nongovernmental and international organisations.
Furthermore, the focus on long-term developments and emphasis on the system level analysis, for instance, mean that it has not been easy to evaluate the impacts of the foresight project (for instance,
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 dedicated methods to improve the awareness and understanding of present and future challenges of the innovation system and its parts.
and codify information that allow a better understanding of the future drivers and challenges, develop visions,
and with what methods the project develops understanding of the future. 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.
These outcomes can be addressed in view of consensual or diverse future perspectives 9: T. Ko nno la et al./
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 253 Consensual future perspectives refer to the creation of common understanding on priorities, relevant collaborative networks and future actions.
and value networks as well as exploring alternative futures and generating rivalling visions. Addressing both consensual and diverse future perspectives are crucial dimensions when dealing with sustainability, and security.
and on future challenges. The opportunity for exclusive participation in foresight may also be highly important
/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
future-oriented elaboration of factors affecting the Nordic business and development environment in ICT. Fixed Structured discussion and the generation of new ideas in the workshops Autonomous Creative brainstorming and ideation in the different scenario and roadmapping workshops.
VTT Water Research Roadmap 2006b Informative Create common understanding on future challenges and VTT expertise. Instrumental Support the formation of different streams of R&d actions within VTT.
Consensual A project level consensus on the future developments. Still, different scenarios were considered. Fixed A fixed procedure
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 255 Table 1 (Continued) Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement UK DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme
Informative Identification of cross-dimensional analysis of the future context of defence in the next 30 years.
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.
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 256 Table 1 (Continued) Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement FISTERA:
futures challenges, applications and priorities for developing the information society in the EU. Instrumental Outputs contributed to prepare the FP7 (Framework programme) ICT programme.
Future Impact of ICTS on Environmental Sustainabilityh 22 Informative Explore how ICTS will influence future environmental sustainability (time horizon:
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.
and needs analysis. Innovation 25 in Japan Informative The final report of‘‘innovation 25''has set out 5 scenarios for future Japan,
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 257 Table 1 (Continued) Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement National Technology roadmap in Korea Informative Learning about the technology
and identified 182 future strategic technologies. Fixed The methodology was fixed at the beginning. Extensive There are broad engagement of diversified stakeholders from government, academia and industry.
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.
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 258 Sustainability: since the Brundlandt Commission 13, many alternative definitions of sustainability have been proposed
informative processes that create understanding on common priorities, relevant collaborative networks and/or future actions.
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 259 and future challenges of the innovation system and its parts. However, specific short-term actions are expected not necessarily after the projects.
It was expected that the project results would describe the future scenarios in detail including diverse uncertainties in such scenarios.
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 260 considered extremely challenging due to high uncertainties related to the issue.
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.
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,
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.
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 261 Information society. FISTERA highlighted priority application areas where R&d investments should be intensified in the future,
and generated a number of debates on the future of information and communication technologies and the development of a knowledge society in Europe.
and value networks as well as identify alternative futures and rivalling visions. This relieves participants on the intensive search for consensus and direct support for decision-making
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 European project‘‘Future Impact of ICTS on Environmental sustainability''aimed to explore (qualitatively) and to assess (quantitatively) the ways in which ICTS would influence future environmental sustainability (time horizon:
2020). ) The findings of the project showed that a large degree of uncertainty existed on impact of ICTS on the environment,
The Nordic ICT Foresight was designed to provide a relevant platform to discuss in a structured way the future of ICT in Nordic countries.
hence this would suggest that foresight projects with open-ended diverse visions of the future are not common in these countries.
/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
while preparedness for the future can be promoted through the diversity of activities within such instruments (e g.,
Most of the projects we analysed have important informative functions in sense that they aim to provide new knowledge for better understanding of issues and of their future implications and challenges.
However, the lack of projects with outcomes emphasising diverse future perspectives may lead to limited exploration of alternative future pathways
/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.
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.
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
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
A Guide to Futures research, Sage, Beverly hills, 1983.12 R. Barre',Synthesis of technology foresight, in Strategic policy Intelligence:
a co-evolutionary view Futures 20 (6)( 1988) 606 620.15 M. Castells, The Rise of the network society.
http://fistera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/(2009-11-10). 22 Future impacts of ICTS on Environmental sustainability Project, available at:
/Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 264
Methods and tools contributing to FTA: A knowledge-based perspective A. Eerola A i. Miles b a VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland b Manchester Institute of Innovation research, Manchester united Kingdom 1
Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 A r T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Futures journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ see front matter 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:
10.1016/j. futures. 2010.11.005 2. FTA and knowledge management Talking about FTA in terms of‘‘knowledge''may seem to risk dealing in oxymorons.
After all, the future has not yet been created, so how can there be have knowledge about it
unless we believe in divinely inspired prophets or gods (and even then there are many problems and paradoxes to confront)?
and what their implications may be for future circumstances. Take a simple example. We may not be able to know what the world population will be in 2050.
what the future will hold, of course, and even if our models are fit for purpose, there are always factors that lie outside of these models that may intervene.
and about future prospects. Methods like Delphi are designed to elicit evidence about expert judgement concerning such prospects.
Bell and Olick 2 reframe the discussion about‘‘knowledge of the future''by arguing that we posit the future
(and make posits about alternative futures). This has similarities to, but also differences from, the ways in which we create knowledge about the past and present.‘
‘Knowing'the future is thought better of as knowing about future possibilities, rather than knowledge of the future.
and systems may evolve into the future. We can establish and know things about posits.
whose knowledge of the future may well be far less than omniscient, and whose acts of creation are undertaken for the purpose of learning.
whose far-future and cosmological‘‘novels''such as Star Maker (1937) dramatise these notions (even introducing ideas of a multiverse).
For a more conventional far-future vision Last and First Men (1930) is a good introduction to this great author.
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 266 beyond organising exchanges among (more or less closely associated) experts.
Porter et al. 3 (the report of the Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group) reviewed many of the tools used
and of course futures research with its emphasis on explicating long-term alternative development prospects. There are quite distinct communities at work in different areas of practice, for example environmental/climatological, employment/skills, security/defence,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 267 As with other practices, FTA ACTIVITIES involve several phases,
the (iv) translation and (v) interpretation of this knowledge to create understanding of its implications for the future of the organisation in question (further posits.
exploration of alternative paths of future development, and how they are integrated into designs for a new context.
comparison of alternative futures that have been posited, and selection of what might be the preferable future given one or other sets of criteria.
Methods such as MCA, SWOT analysis, cross impact and trend impact analysis apply here. Roughly more of Horton's subtask (iv.
and the key future or futures that have been posited (and possibly some other possibilities). Roadmapping has become a very popular tool used at this stage,
and near future concerning actions to shape the future. Various approaches to prioritisation (such as key technologies analysis, plotting feasibility against impact of various actions, MCA,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 268 Many of the individual methods may be associated with more than one of the five steps,
which can contribute important contributions to debate about future prospects and possibilities. Unfortunately for every study of this sort there are typically,
than characterised many earlier futures studies. It should be noted that‘‘prospective strategique''in Francophone countries often stressed these elements,
as did occasional futures studies elsewhere.)This wider participation is not, of course, a matter of participatory democracy as commonly understood though such FTA could be an important contributor to establishing more deliberative democracy in S&t policy areas that have on account of the expert knowledge associated with them historically been dominated by vested interests and technocratic elites.
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 269 programmes and projects (discussed, for example, in the literatures on complex product systems,
or celebrations of transhumanism but also to more‘‘mundane''exploration of future opportunities and risks associated with large-scale projects
This reflectsawareness that it isimpossible foroneall-knowing policy organisation or level of government to grasp all of the intelligence that is needed to make sense of future challenges and opportunities.
or adapt to, future circumstances, providing and working with relevant knowledge to build capabilities for better action.
and shared visions of what futures to seek or avoid. Having key actors, or influential members from key organisations, engaged in the FTA PROCESS means that they can develop a much deeper understanding of the process itself,
and action within it that can contribute to the construction of the future. Involvement inthe FTAPROCESS thus increases the understanding of itsoutcomes and their relevance in various situations,
FTA PROCESSES striving for consensus differ from those welcoming diverse views on future developments; and instrumental FTA PROCESSES differ from merely informative ones.
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 270 Whatever mixture of the three goals is being pursued,
as Jaspers et al. 16 discuss in the case of Germany's Future programme. FTA ACTIVITIES necessarily involve, in a very central position, engaging knowledgeable agents,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 271 understanding themselves and their worlds, or whatever.
some allow for synthesising information into posits, views of alternative futures, such as those incorporated into scenarios and roadmaps.
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 272 management in a scenario workshop are discussed in the next section,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 273 forecasts, even background scenarios (e g.‘‘‘‘starter scenarios''to be elaborated) prepared by an expert team or in earlier studies.
or more detailed posits about the future. Yet already some‘‘combination''of information is likely to have been performed outside of the workshop, in the course of the preparation of the background material.
and lead to distinctive futures. Often, something like the STEEPV approach in which people are asked to identify factors and issues under the headings social, technological, economic, environmental, political,
identifying turning points and indicators of change, developing narratives of future histories and accounts of affairs at a future point in time in a way enabling comparison across break out groups, and so on.
In more aspirational‘‘success scenario''workshops or vision workshops it is more common for breakout groups to examine what a desirable future would look like in detail within specified subdomains,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 274 making. This is most likely to be accomplished by those who have participated in
Technology Roadmapping and other ways of visualising future prospects are supported by improved tools, and Delphi and other methods for eliciting expert opinion are frequently put online.
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 275 One of the biggestkmchallenges that confront FTA,
Classic futures research was criticised often for elitism and subservience to military or corporate interests; more Recent foresight programmes have addressed broader participation more directly,
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 276 safeguards and privacy-enhancing mechanisms...thereby encouraging people to accept
for example. 14 But such large-scale critical exercises and re-envisioning of the futures posited in major studies remains uncommon,
Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.2 W. Bell, J. K. Olick, An epistemology for the futures field:
problems and possibilities of prediction, Futures 21 (2)( 1999) 115 135.3 A l. Porter, et al. Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis:
toward integration of the field & new methods, Technological forecasting and Social Change 71 (3)( 2004) 287 303.4 R. Johnston, Historical review of the development of future-oriented technology analysis, in:
Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.5 M. Rader, A. Porter, Fitting future-oriented analysis methods to study types, in:
Springer, Berlin, 2008.6 I. Miles, From Futures to Foresight, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan,
the case of‘Future',Seville, First International EU US Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, 2004 (available at http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta/papers
I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 277 23 I. Miles, J. Cassingena Harper, L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, R. Popper, New Frontiers:
A Story of the Near and Far Future, Methuen, London, 1930.29 O. Stapledon, Star Maker, Methuen, London, 1937.30 O. Stapledon, Sirius:
. Cole, C. Freeman, M. Jahoda, K. L. R. Pavitt, Thinking about the Future, Chatto & Windus, London, 1973,
How Open is the Future? VUB Brussels University Press, Brussels, 2005. A. Eerola, I. Miles/Futures 43 (2011) 265 278 278
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011