a dominance both in papers submitted and in taxonomic terms of the‘‘foresight''label. In successive conferences conclusions have noted this tendency to regard FTA as the name of the conference
and foresight as the generic term for the field encompassing most, if not all of the approaches listed above.
Certainly foresight papers have dominated numerically but the need to recognise the traditions of technology assessment, forecasting and other dimensions of futures studies remains important
the success of foresight in recent years illustrates the strength of 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,
and that for wider purposes a dual definition of foresight as a broader umbrella and as a specific family of approaches will persist.
13 but the anchor papers plus another which represented a crosscutting theme emerging at the conference (tailoring foresight) have been put together here.
and more specifically for foresight, in terms of its inbuilt concern with research and innovation policy or strategy issues.
Schoen et al. address recent developments in foresight theory and practice which lead them to deploy a hybrid methodological framework involving tailored approaches for specific purposes
Ko nno la et al. put forward a framework to clarify different roles of foresight within the system and their respective impacts and implications for policy and societal developments.
Among FTA TOOLS foresight is posited as the most suitable for providing policy support to address major societal challenges.
and emphasises the need for the kind of participatory approaches that foresight in particular can offer. Tailored approaches are needed that reflect the varied and complex structures of sectors
a pressing and long-term challenge, Futures 41 (2009) 67 70.8 I. Miles, From futures to foresight, in:
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
The paper addresses recent developments in Foresight theory and practice which allow for deploying a hybrid methodological framework where different approaches serve different purposes in specific phases in order to tailor Foresight to a wide range of different contexts and objectives.
The paper can be characterised as empirically based theory building. The theoretical framework is elaborated by applying it in two R&i fields:(
In particular it is suggested that the capability of Foresight to function as a systemic innovation policy instrument for enhancing innovation
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.
and innovation system and identifies the catalytic role of Foresight in this framework. The European system is sketched in terms of‘‘institutional arrangements''by depicting three (interrelated) arenas for the orientation, the programming and the performance of research.
Foresight is presented as a systemic policy tool appropriate for contributing to a better-geared European research
first in the area of genetically modified plants and then for the domain of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. 2. Background and rationale 2. 1. Tailoring Foresight a revision During the last two decades the field of Foresight has developed a lot through practical experience
evidence-based policy and academic disciplines such as Innovation studies and Science and Technology studies 2. A number of classifications have been developed distinguishing types of Foresight with respect to approach, context and purpose 3
Foresight practitioners do now deploy hybrid methodological frameworks where different approaches serve different purposes in specific phases in order to tailor Foresight to each specific purpose and context.
The famous‘‘Foresight generations''4 are viewed no more as mutually exclusive but as complementary approaches. Explorative and normative elements are combined as well as wide collective dialogue
Key Foresight concepts such as‘‘vision''that were used previously in a rather broad and all encompassing manner have been deconstructed
7. At the same time the notion of Foresight as a governance tool and policy instrument has been refined. Systems of policy functions have been proposed to enable Foresight design
and evaluation to tailor approaches to policy objectives (8, Forsociety). In order to improve Foresight impact on policy strategy building it has been proposed to complement collective Foresight processes with a strategic counselling phase where the outcomes are translated into strategic choices 9. To sum up,
it seems that Foresight has been evolving from a loose collection of approaches to a complex integrated framework with a number of levers for adaptation to specific purposes and contexts and gradually,
The main context variables taken into account for Tailoring Foresight are focus, objectives and policy functions on the one hand and nature of decision making structure and their relation to the Foresight process on the other. 2. 2. Why more tailoring?
In this paper we address the issue of the tailoring of Foresight with respect to themes or field,
In an early attempt to explore dependency between field dynamics and Foresight success the FORMAKIN project highlighted how Foresight works differently in close
and loose-knit configurational relations 20. However, apart from this, there are hardly any systematic accounts of the relationship Foresight design
and field specificities. Therefore we aim at‘‘deconstructing''Foresight to identify the objectives and variables that need to be adapted to match these domains'specificities. 3. Institutional arrangements in European research and innovation system In Europe, the conduct,
the funding and the strategic orientation of research and innovation have become a multilevel and multi-actor arrangement (e g. 21,22).
but did not substitute the actors of this latter arena. 3. 2. Foresight objectives in the context of the three governance arenas We choose to focus our analysis on Foresight in connection with policy
Foresight can be characterised as a systemic instrument 25 aiming at enhanced capabilities in innovation systems and their parts 26.
Foresight in support to priority-setting. Priority-setting supports the identification of common future actions and the efficient allocation of resources 28.
Here, Foresight can generate ideas on alternatives and recognise the diverse perspectives in priority setting 32,33
Foresight in support to networking, which enhances the connectivity of the innovation system and can improve its performance 34.
Here, Foresight can also contribute to the creative restructuring and even the destruction of lock in conditions by engaging different stakeholders in the proactive generation of rivalling visions for competing coalitions based on different value networks with different architectures, configurations, features and standards 37,38.
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.
In other words, Foresights for research policy purposes, can be characterised by their positioning in the governance arenas vs.
Foresight Table 1 Elements characterising the three arenas of governance for R&i in the EU context.
/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.
and performance arenas need different types of Foresights and such is the case also for priority-setting,
each cell of the matrix shapes a specific framework for Foresight, -different thematic fields refer to different‘search regimes'characterising their mode
and dynamics of knowledge production which impact the state of play in each cell of the matrix, hence the proper Foresight design.
Arenas of governance Foresight objective Priority-setting Networking Building visions Strategic orientation Macro policy priority setting National/EU level stakeholders networks Overall political
Table 3 summarises the network analysis-based toolbox designed for characterising search regimes dimensions with an initial focus on the cells highlighted in grey. 5. Tailoring Foresight to Knowledge dynamics In this section,
The immediate conclusion for Foresight is need the for consensus building among stakeholders from industry and civil society for a further development of the European research and innovation system.
There seems to be a strong demand for all three Foresight objectives namely participatory visioning
On a closer look the needs for Foresight can be specified on the base of the field analysis. It seems unlikely that the existence of consensual visions focussing on GM research alone will be sufficient
To sum up Foresight may serve for channelling more elements into the GM research and innovation system thus helping to relax some of the current tensions.
This type of Foresight is also likely to inform further integration of the programming arena
Foresight oriented towards holistic visions building seems likely to provide relevant support here, which calls for operations in the orientation arena.
To sum up the analysis revealed two types of Foresight useful for underpinning the European research and innovation system in the area of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies:(
and programming arena and create trusted ground for nanoinnovvation at the orientation arena level. 6. Conclusions The paper set out from the notion of Foresight as a systemic innovation policy instrument supporting priority setting,
The paper aimed to enhance the ability of Foresight to fulfil these functions through systematically taking into account (a) the specific characteristics of the research
For each field specific lock in situations to be tackled by Foresight were revealed. Both cases have revealed a strong institutional complementarity reflecting an early alignment of academia
Finally, it needs to be ensured that tailoring of Foresight to the current dynamics of a research
It follows that the Foresight function, in its various objectives, will have to be designed and implemented in this totally new and complex situation.
and contribute to address the challenge we face regarding both the ERA and Foresight. Acknowledgements This paper is based on a workshop organised by the JRC-IPTS European foresight Action at Seville, Spain, June 2008.
Current Trends, The State of Play and Perspectives, S&t Intelligence for Policy-making processes, European commission EUR 20137 EN, Sevilla, 2001.4 L. Georghiou, Third Generation Foresight Integrating
the Socioeconomic Dimension, Foresight Center of NISTEP, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.5 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes, For Society Transnational Foresight ERA NET, 2006.6 N. Borup, N
20 N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster, Foresight as a Tool for the Management of Knowledge Flows and Innovation (FORMAKIN.
Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1/2)( 2004) 4 32.26 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)( 2009) 70 88.27 T. Ko nno la, V
. Brummer, A. Salo, Diversity in Foresight: insights from the fostering of innovation ideas, Technological forecasting and Social Change 74 (5)( 2007) 608 626.28 J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Foresight in Science:
Picking the Winners, Pinter Publ. London/Dover, 1984.29 W. B. Arthur, Competing technologies, increasing returns,
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 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,
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 use foresight to develop policy (or business strategy). The third group is associated almost always with the verb‘‘to foster
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.
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.
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...
In the realm of foresight, the process of list generation is taken over by the foresight process itself.
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.
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.
Substantial effort is put into the preparation of technology landscaping or foresight documents as an input to the strategy process 17.
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
An example of a more explicitly structural foresight is The french Futuris exercise. This was led industry
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,
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
Another kind of structural foresight has an actor-focus. For example this was an explicit objective of an EU project
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.
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
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
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
An emergent opportunity for the application of foresight is in demand-side innovation policy. This represents a reorientation of innovation policy
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
To understand the relevance of these trends for foresight it is necessary to unpack the factors
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:
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
/18 R. Barre',Foresight in France, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M'Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),
Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 112 130.19 P. Crehan, J. Cassingena Harper, Foresight in smaller countries, in:
Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 216 236.20 A. Havas, M. Keenan, Foresight in CEE countries, in:
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:
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
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
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,
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:
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.§
4 6). We elaborate further a foresight framework developed by Ko nno la et al. 7 to characterise different foresight projects
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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;
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
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 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
The foresight projects listed in Table 1 can be classified according to the foresight design and management dimensions discussed in Section 2
Agora and Innovations foresight. 3. 2. Visions foresight (consensual perspectives and informative outcomes) Visions foresight can be characterised as consensual,
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.
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,
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.
Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (2002 2005) was an FP5 IST Thematic Network coordinated by JRC-IPTS
5 Japan is the pioneer of technology forecasting and foresight, and has completed 8 times technology foresight activities
and how S&t foresight and strategic S&t investments in the new Centre for Security Science could help to acquire those capabilities.
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
The Nordic ICT Foresight was designed to provide a relevant platform to discuss in a structured way the future of ICT in Nordic 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
The second project identifiedwas a foresightprocess attachedtofinnish Foresight Forum, whichengageddifferent stakeholder groups, encouragedthemtosubmit ideas on prospective innovations,
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.
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
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.
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.
/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,
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.
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
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
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:
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:
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