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 , Calle Vi'ctor Andre's Belaunde, 36,4 C, 28016 Madrid, Spain b European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre (JRC), Programmes and Stakeholders Relations , Square de Meeu s, 8, Office SDME 10/84, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium c European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso, 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain d Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences 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, but also to engage relevant stakeholders and create common visions into action 2, 3. Furthermore, foresight processes can also become a pertinent design phase for the creation of new value networks that are based on the novel combinations of technologies, organisational partnerships and institutional arrangements. Interestingly, these dimensions match largely with approaches addressed when the major societal challenges are dealt with. The locus of foresight activities has tended to shift from positivist and rationalist technology-focused approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire innovation system, including its societal perspectives, for instance, sustainability, security and information society. 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 and provide support to current decision-making. Whereas the paper reports some findings on the future of challenges especially related to sustainability, security and information society, it mainly provides evidence on how foresight impacts on policy-making and societal developments. The paper elaborates a framework with key design dimensions related to foresight process and outcomes in order to characterise different kinds of foresight projects. The framework is applied for the empirically based ex post analysis of selected foresight projects around the world in order to clarify (i) different roles for foresight in the innovation system and society and (ii) its respective impacts and implications on policy. 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.§§The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European commission or of its services, or of the Chinese Academy of Science.**Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: totti. konnola@impetusolutions. com (T. Ko nno la), fabiana. scapolo@ec. europa. eu (F. Scapolo), paul. desruelle@ec. europa. eu (P. Desruelle), mrp@casipm. ac. cn (R. Mu. 1 Tel.:++32 2 298 5846; fax:++32 2 296 1835.2 Tel.:++34 954 488 329.3 Tel.:++86 10 82640860; fax:++86 10 82640685. 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, 4 6). We elaborate further a foresight framework developed by Ko nno la et al. 7 to characterise different foresight projects and apply it to ex post analysis of some national and international foresight projects around the world in order to clarify (i) different roles of foresight in the innovation system and (ii) its respective impacts and implications on policy and societal developments. Section 2 elaborates the conceptual framework for the characterisation of different foresight projects. In Section 3, some national and international projects are examined and characterised within the framework, of which results are discussed in view of impacts on policy-making. Section 4 provides some conclusions and discussion on the possible advantages of the proposed framework for the characterisation of foresight projects as contribution to the policy-making process. 2. Characteristics of foresight projects To understand the impacts of foresight in the system, it is beneficial to identify different types of foresight activities. The design of foresight activities addressing societal challenges can benefit from the structured approaches that help to identify the expectations concerning the management of the foresight process and final outcomes 8. The systemic understanding of innovation processes has challenged conventional technology driven forecasting practices and called for new participatory foresight approaches that address also the consideration of diverse perspectives, formation of shared knowledge and examination of alternative futures. Foresight activities are seen also increasingly as crucial functions in order to prepare for the future not only to identify the promising technological pathways but also to engage relevant stakeholders and create common visions and action plans 2, 9. Furthermore, foresight processes can often be seen as a pertinent design phase for the creation of newvalue networks that are based on novel combinations of technologies, organisational partnerships and institutional arrangements. Along these lines Ko nno la et al. 7 have developed a framework for the purposes of strategic management of a foresight portfolio in a contract research organisation. In this paper this framework is applied and elaborated for the purposes to characterise foresight projects conducted around the world in relation with major societal challenges. The framework consists of four key design dimensions. The first dimension addresses the type of main outcomes of the foresight project referring to its different kinds of impacts on the policy and society at large. The second dimension is chosen about future perspectives in the design of the project. The third dimension focuses on the way the project is managed and coordinated. And finally, the fourth dimension deals with different ways of engaging stakeholders in the project. In each of the four dimensions archetypal dichotomies are conceptualised for the further characterisation of a foresight project. Furthermore for classification purposes, the framework considers outcomes and future perspectives both referring to the outcome-related aspects of the project, for instance responding to a question on what and what kind of outcomes are achieved. The management approach and stakeholder engagement refer, instead, to the process-related aspects of the project, for instance responding to a question on how the outcomes were achieved and by whom. 2. 1. Type of outcomes prioritized: 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. Results in turn refer to advantage (or disadvantage) that the beneficiaries obtain soon after the end of their participation; and impacts refer to consequences affecting beneficiaries during and after the project. For the purposes of the paper we consider instrumental and informative outcomes that are defined as follows: Informative outcomes refer to the use of foresight process and dedicated methods to improve the awareness and understanding of present and future challenges of the innovation system and its parts. Thus, the informative outcomes do not refer to the expectations that a foresight activity would necessarily lead to specific actions. Instrumental outcomes refer not only to informative outcomes 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. In view of societal challenges, there is a need to provide outcomes to support targeted decision making situations. As well it is necessary to collect and codify information that allow a better understanding of the future drivers and challenges, develop visions, defining the setting of priorities and have more accurate forecasts on the time-horizons of S&t developments. 2. 2. Chosen future perspectives: consensual vs. diverse Future perspectives can be addressed to define the approach of how 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. Diverse future perspectives refer to developing and understanding diverse ideas, opinions and perspectives in prioritysettting identifying and fostering alternative and competing coalitions 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. In both fields, in particular the development of alternative scenarios help addressing uncertainties and diverse interconnections between many drivers. On the other hand it is crucial to be able to develop also consensual visions and recommendations into action for policy and in more general decision-making processes. 2. 3. Chosen management approach: fixed vs. autonomous The foresight process can be taken up with different kinds of management approaches, which are driven often by the diverse expectations laid on the project. The creation of new, especially shared knowledge is challenging, in particular, when the people participating in the foresight process typically have heterogeneous backgrounds, which occurs when various interest groups (industry, academia, government, NGOS, etc.)and different geographical areas (countries, regions, etc. are engaging in the foresight process. This means that special attention must be paid to the organisation of the process and to the appropriate use of formal tools and procedures. Furthermore, those in charge of the foresight process are likely to benefit from the sharp definition of their role and approach in the management of the process. This makes it easier to design the process in a coherent way and to communicate the responsibilities of different stakeholders. Here, two extreme approaches can be identified in view of the classification purposes 10: Fixed management can be characterised as centralised approach in which co-ordinators fix the scope and methods of the project at the outset and control the process, which is often the case for example in Delphi projects 11. Autonomous management, in turn, refers to the process intermediated by the co-ordinators, who facilitate autonomous and evolving participant-led continuumofmeetings and other activities, whichmaybe the case for example in expert panelwork. Addressing major societal challenges such as security, sustainability and information society issues requires typically many types of participants as well as different kinds of methods to adapt to the interests and expectations of the participants but can also ensure the relevant outcomes useful for further application in decision-making. Thus both dimensions may play important role in the design and management of a foresight process. 2. 4. Chosen emphasis in stakeholder engagement: extensive vs. exclusive One way to conceptualise stakeholder engagement is to define extensive and exclusive stakeholder engagement 12 and the continuum of different possible combined approaches between them, namely from confined exclusive engagement to extensive but exclusive engagement towards to extensive and open engagement of stakeholders. Extensive stakeholder engagement refers to the approach in which the actual number of participants is high, the stakeholder participation is encouraged and open for all the interested stakeholders and many kinds of stakeholders are invited to participate in the process. Exclusive stakeholder engagement means that stakeholder participation is not extensive and thus not open for all the stakeholders interested. Extensive stakeholder engagement in a foresight process in which experts are involved also allows stakeholders to become better aware of signals of change and threats and consequently to put in place preparedness mechanisms to act on time. Anticipation of intelligence (or knowledge) is a contribution to improve the knowledge base for the designing of policies. In the security, sustainability and information society fields, stakeholders have the possibility to develop scenarios on which basis diverse policy options could be outlined. Other benefits that could be achieved through the Foresight process include creation of linkages among participants, development of a shared understanding on the various issues at stake, and on future challenges. The opportunity for exclusive participation in foresight may also be highly important since this mode allows confidentiality and trust among the participants. Hence, it is likely that in the foresight designs both exclusive and extensive elements are present. 3. Empirical findings on foresight projects addressing societal challenges 3. 1. Introduction Major societal challenges have been addressed by the foresight community for already several decades. In this paper we focus our analysis on three areas that have been addressed increasingly by the foresight community: T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 254 Table 1 Selected foresight projects addressing societal challenges. Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement Nordic ICT Foresighta 17 Informative Evaluations of key ICT applications, Nordic scenario set in context of ICT development, scenario -based visionary roadmaps. Building views of the Nordic potentials in ICT development among key actors. Action proposals and policy recommendations. Diverse Alternative scenarios. Also identification of ICT applications with development potentials in Nordic region; 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. Exclusive Intensive stakeholder engagement in core group Extensive Cooperative idea and concept creation among stakeholders from different Nordic organisations and firms; networking. 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. Diverse Inclusion of alternative views on priority-setting. The identification of key action areas for VTT water research and their priority-setting. Fixed Structured questionnaire; defined agenda for workshops and structured priority-setting. Autonomous Flexible use of methods in working groups. Exclusive VTT expert engagement in steering group and workshops to enable intensive communication. Extensive Networking among VTT experts on water related R&d through questionnaires, co-writing. Nordic H2 Energy Foresightc 18 Informative Awareness raising and deepening the overall understanding of the entire value chain (hydrogen production, storage, distribution, stationary hydrogen uses and hydrogen uses in transport). An action plan for the Nordic key actors without a direct link to any decision process. Consensual Shared understandings were searched for in order to be able to give action recommendations for the Nordic key actors. Still, a variety of views and opinions were considered and debated during the process. Fixed The overall design of the process was determined already when planning the project. The model and modelling techniques in use guided the data gathering of the system analysis part. Autonomous There was still a significant degree of freedom to adapt to the perceived needs during the process and the development of roadmaps and scenarios. Extensive The participation was open for research institutes industry, associations and public organisations of the five Nordic countries. EU: IRRIIS scenario workd 19 Informative Identification of emerging safety and security issues in an EU project to ensure the safety of critical infrastructures. Consensual A project level consensus on the future developments. Still, different scenarios were considered. Fixed A fixed procedure and methods selected in the beginning of the project. Autonomous Autonomous scenario work among the stakeholders. The experience of stakeholders‘‘overwrote''the methodological rigidity in some points. Exclusive The work was carried out among the project partners. Extensive The results were tested against available expertise outside the project consortium. T. Ko nno la et al.//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. Instrumental The document is a source for the development of the UK Defence policy. Consensual This process aims to provide new evidence and thinking on strategic trends on specific risks highlighting significant defence and security implications. The findings consist in probability based outcomes. Fixed The procedure was fixed at the beginning of the process. It applies trend analysis with a time-horizon of 30 years. Autonomous Expert group work. Exclusive Process was mainly small expert group work. Extensive Ideas were exposed in conferences and a survey was launched to opinion-formers leaders in business, government, media, NGOS and academia. The outcomes were reviewed by external experts. The findings were tested against the views of an international and largely non-Western peer group. Foresight Canadae Informative Identification of emerging and frontier technology domains addressing subjects such as future fuels, bio-health innovation, geo-strategic systems, animal health and infectious disease. Instrumental The outputs were used to contribute to a joint security technology initiative of Canada as well as strategic S&t investments in the Defence R&d Canada Centre for Security Science. Consensual The outputs drove discussions of national security challenges to provide input into capabilities needed to meet these challenges. Fixed Strategic environmental scan based on experts'view was used assess probability and impacts of projected threats. Autonomous The overall process was based on workshops. Creative workshop discussions. Extensive The process involved a network of security stakeholders. These were coming from different government departments, private companies, and research organisations. Exclusive Only invited participants. 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. Instrumental Identification of innovation ideas and promoting stakeholder networking. Diverse Analysis of diverging views on innovation ideas among stakeholders. Fixed Robust portfolio modelling, online surveys. Autonomous Stakeholder workshops. Extensive Wide stakeholder participation in online surveys. Exclusive Limited but open stakeholder participation in the workshops. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 256 Table 1 (Continued) Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement FISTERA: Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research Areag 21 Informative Identification and SWOT analysis of socio-techno-economic trends, drivers and challenges; key characteristics of ICT research in Europe including human resources aspects; futures challenges, applications and priorities for developing the information society in the EU. Instrumental Outputs contributed to prepare the FP7 (Framework programme) ICT programme. Consensual FISTERA identified priority application areas where investments in ICT research should be intensified in the future, motivated both by S&t developments and by socioeconomic needs. Fixed Scenario workshops, on-line Delphi study, on-line forum, national seminars(‘‘FISTERA road show'')supported by desk research. Flexibility Results of each phase of the project were disseminated widely and feedback on these results was used in the next phases, also to adapt the methodological approach. Extensive There was an extensive engagement of stakeholders. More than 500 experts including policy makers, business actors and researchers from all EU Member States responded to the on-line Delphi study. In addition, more than 600 stakeholders in a various EU Member States were addressed in a series of national seminars. A number of scenario workshops were held, each involving in average 25 participants. Future Impact of ICTS on Environmental Sustainabilityh 22 Informative Explore how ICTS will influence future environmental sustainability (time horizon: 2020) and develop policy recommendations. Results were discussed with both DG Information society and DG Transport and Energy of the European commission. Diverse Description of a large degree of uncertainty of impact of ICTS on the environment. The scenarios developed during the project accommodated a diverse range of views and suggested a number of possibilities. Fixed The methodology was fixed at the beginning of the project. It consisted of data gathering and combination of qualitative scenarios and quantitative modelling. Exclusive The project was conducted mainly by the research partners. The scenario building step involved around fifteen external experts and stakeholders. At various steps of the projects experts were consulted to validate the results and methodological aspects. Policy recommendations were validated thought interviews of about twenty experts in ICT or environmental policy The 8th Japanese technology foresight program Informative Understanding future S&t challenges. Instrumental The 8th Japanese technology foresight program aims to provide necessary information for making the 3rd S&t basic plan of Japan. Consensual The 8th Japanese technology foresight program consists of consensual Delphi survey, scenario, bibliometrics and needs analyses. Fixed The methodology for the 8th Japanese technology foresight program is fixed at the beginning of the project, including: Delphi, Scenario, bibliometrics, and social and economic needs analysis. Autonomous There was still a significant degree of freedom to adapt to the perceived needs during the process and the development of scenarios and social and economic needs. Extensive There was an extensive engagement of diversified stakeholders. About 2239 experts participated in Delphi survey. Also, many experts of social sciences participated in scenarios analysis and needs analysis. Innovation 25 in Japan Informative The final report of‘‘innovation 25''has set out 5 scenarios for future Japan, and find out the prior S&t topics to achieve the social goals. Instrumental‘‘Innovation 25''aims to make long-term strategy for Japan. Consensual‘‘Innovation 25''has set 5 scenarios of Japan society in 2025 and it includes‘‘Long Health Society'',Safe and Secure Society'',Society with Multiple Career Path, ''‘Japan contributing to Global Issues''and‘‘Japan Opening to the World''.''Fixed The methodology was fixed at the beginning. The Cabinet Office established the Innovation 25 Strategy Council and the Innovation 25 Special Mission, and six fields were discussed by workshops independently. Autonomous There is freedom in discussion for social scenarios in each field, and the priority setting of science and technology based on technology foresight. Extensive There was an extensive engagement of diversified stakeholders from government, academia and industry. T. Ko nno la et al.//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 pathways and needs. National Technology roadmap in Korea aims to make long term strategy plan. Consensual National Technology roadmap (NTRM) in Korea has set up five complementary visions, two of which are related to sustainability and security directly, including‘‘Advancing the E2 (Environment and Energy) Frontier''and the‘‘Improving National Safety and Prestige''.''Fixed The major activities in establishing NTRM have been guided by the NTRM Head Council. The Executive Committee was also set up with 5 subcommittees that are the core body in developing NTRM. In addition, TRM teams (in total 74 teams) were set up to draw TRMS for key technologies in the second stage. Autonomous Each TRM team consists of around 10 technology experts from industries, academic circles and research circles. Extensive A total of 751 committee members have participated in drawing NTRM. 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 namely to provide necessary information for making the 2nd Korea S&t Framework plan. Consensual The‘‘Revision of 3rd Korean TF''has analysed the impacts of 19 megatrends & issues, 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. Consensual NTFC has identified lots of key technologies in 9 research fields based on the Delphi survey. Fixed The methodology was fixed at the beginning. Extensive Very diversified stakeholders from government academia and industry have participated in NTFC. Technology foresight towards 2020 in China Informative TF2020 aims to provide necessary information for making long term strategy for science and technology development in China, and for influencing the allocation of S&t resources in CAS. Consensual TF2020 has set up 6 pictures of China development in 2020, and identified 734 key technologies in 8 research fields based on the Delphi survey. Fixed The methodology was fixed at the beginning. Extensive Diversified stakeholders from government, academia and industry are very active in the process of TF2020. a Commissioned by the Nordic council. b Commissioned and conducted by VTT Technical research Centre. c Commissioned by the Nordic council. d The EU Integrated Project IRRIIS Integrated Risk Reduction of Information-based Infrastructure Systems. e Commissioned by the Office of the National science Advisor (ONSA. f Commissioned by the Finnish Government. g A FP5 IST Thematic Network (2002 2005) coordinated by JRC-IPTS and managed in collaboration with DG Information society. h Commissioned by JRC-IPTS. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 258 Sustainability: since the Brundlandt Commission 13, many alternative definitions of sustainability have been proposed and diverse interpretations of the concept made. Many of these are based upon the‘three-pillar'or‘triple bottom line'concept, which separates development issues into social and economic factors, emphasising that material gains are not sufficient measures or preservers of human well-being 14. For instance, some major sustainability challenges address climate change, global equity and competiveness. Security: the term refers to the condition of being protected against danger or loss that originate from outside such as war, disaster, civil unrest, vandalism, or sabotage. Herein, security means that something not only is secure or safe but that it has been secured. Security is typically related to critical infrastructure, a term used by governments to describe material assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy (such as electricity generation and distribution, telecommunication, transportation systems, public health, financial services, and security services (both police and military). Information society: a term put forward by Castells 15 to describe a society built on technologies of information storage, retrieval, and transmission time-space compression, post-Fordism, flexible accumulation, and the advance of finance capital, which is characterized by networking, globalization, and the flexibility, individuality, and instability of work. Information society calls, for instance, for a new legislative framework to recognize and protect the users of cyberspace. The European commission has been an active promoter of the information society. 4 While the authors consider diverse approaches valuable in the realm of foresight to address societal challenges, for the purposes of this paper, the empirical part focuses on foresight and its respective implications on policy. A quick scan was performed on foresight projects that address security, sustainability and/or information society issues. The suitability of the identified projects was discussed and the list of projects for further analysis was agreed. The attempt was not to make a global scan of the conducted foresight projects in these fields, but rather to analyse projects that the authors knew well and considered relevant and/or distinctive to provide some empirical findings for further analysis and for attesting the developed framework and its usability. The projects are described shortly in Table 1. The conceptual dichotomies of the foresight dimensions defined in Section 2 provide a structure for the analysis assuming of course, that foresight project consists of identifiable elements for the classification. In practice, foresight activities often consist of some elements of the both sides of these dichotomies, and altogether they form the combination of a case specific process design. The positioning of individual projects in the framework clarifies the methodological decisions and the rationales of stakeholder engagement. Once the projects are positioned in the framework they provide an overview of the whole portfolio of foresight projects analysed that supports building the more holistic view of the selected activities. The foresight projects listed in Table 1 can be classified according to the foresight design and management dimensions discussed in Section 2 . When the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental) and future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse correspond the horizontal and vertical lines, the selected foresight projects (described in Table 1) can be positioned in four different quadrants (consensual and informative; consensual and instrumental; diverse and informative and diverse and instrumental)( Fig. 1). In parallel, the projects can also be positioned in view of process oriented dimensions. When the process management (autonomous and fixed) and stakeholder engagement (extensive and exclusive) dimensions are considered to correspond to the horizontal and vertical axes, they produce together a coordinate system (see Fig. 2). Here, the horizontal axis represents the qualitative continuum from fixed to autonomous management, and the vertical axis the continuum from extensive to exclusive stakeholder engagement. Furtheron, if the coordinate systemof Fig. 2 ispositionedtoeachquadrant of Fig. 1, the foresightprojects canbepositionedin the coordinates to provide detailed information on the nature of the outcomes and process of each project (Fig. 3). Hence once the project is in one of the four quadrants (according to consensual vs. diverse and informative vs. instrumental) the position of the project can be defined in the coordinates (from fixed to autonomous and from exclusive to extensive. Projects positioned in the quadrants and the coordinate systems provide bases for further analysis of their characteristics and methodological choices. Subsequently, we discuss the impacts of the selected projects on policy in the four quadrants, which we call Visions, Priorities, Agora and Innovations foresight. 3. 2. Visions foresight (consensual perspectives and informative outcomes) Visions foresight can be characterised as consensual, informative processes that create understanding on common priorities, relevant collaborative networks and/or future actions. They are expected to improve the understanding of present 4 In 1997 the European commission published a"Green Paper"pointing at the development of a new Information society characterised not only by convergence of technology and by exchange of information other many different networks, but also by development of new services and new ways of doing business and of interacting with citizens 16. The main purpose of the green paper was to launch a debate on the regulatory framework to put in place in order to support the development of the Information society in Europe. In parallel with addressing regulatory aspects, the European union (EU) included in its Fifth Framework programme for Research and Technological development (FP5: 1998 2002) a specific programme for research on a"User-friendly information society"."Today, with the i2010 policy framework, the EU aims to"promote the positive contribution that information and communication technologies (ICT) can make to the economy, society and personal quality of life, "and the ICT priority has the largest budget share of the current European RTD Framework programme (FP7: 2007 2013. T. Ko nno la et al.//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. This setting relieves the participants partly from claiming value and from the pressures of policymakkin and lobbying and hence may enable also otherwise adversary parties to learn together and search for common ground for long-term agendas. Among the foresight projects examined, IRRIIS Scenario work was part of the European integrated project that provided improved understanding of the developments in the security field. It was expected that the project results would describe the future scenarios in detail including diverse uncertainties in such scenarios. This challenge was dealt with in the brainstorming workshops, intensive e-mail communication, commenting and co-writing. The consensual scenario work was()TD$FIG Fig. 1. Foresight projects positioned in view of the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental) and future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse. TD$FIG Fig. 2. Process management (from fixed to autonomous) and stakeholder engagement (from exclusive to extensive) dimensions in a coordinate system. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 260 considered extremely challenging due to high uncertainties related to the issue. The results were communicated to the Commission, but direct impacts to policy-making have not been recorded. In the Nordic H2 Energy Foresight the major challenge was to create shared understandings on future hydrogen-based energy systems between different stakeholder groups representing five different countries. For foresight activities on emerging issues that are not yet proven to be of high policy importance it may be difficult to engage policy-makers in the process. In the Nordic H2 Energy Foresight specific efforts were made to engage policy-makers but with limited immediate success. This may be partly due to the initial positioning of the projects as informative rather than instrumental, thus not considered as policy-making processes 9. At best, indirect and diffuse policy links during and after such projects may be influential in the long run, however. Consensual and informative foresight processes in Asian countries such as Japan5, China6 and Korea, seem to have important role both in enhancing national systems as well as in the international communication. 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, the processes served policy-making by providing relevant background information, but they were meant not as such to engage policy-makers in the process. 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. Among decision-makers this is likely to lead to interests in the results. However policy interests may also enter in the foresight process and create rigidities and difficulties to provide new and fresh perspectives for change. This may be supported by ensuring extensive stakeholder participation through the diversity and high number of participants. Among the foresight projects examined, FISTERA: Foresight on Information society Technologies in the European research area (2002 2005) was an FP5 IST Thematic Network coordinated by JRC-IPTS and managed in collaboration with DG()TD$FIG Fig. 3. Foresight projects positioned in view of the dimensions of outcomes (informative vs. instrumental), future perspectives (consensual vs. diverse) and in the coordinate system of stakeholder engagement (extensive and exclusive) and management (autonomous and fixed). 5 Japan is the pioneer of technology forecasting and foresight, and has completed 8 times technology foresight activities since 1970.6 FTA projects in China in broad sense can be traced to‘‘The 12 Years Science Development Planning''made in 1956, when over one thousand top scientists participated in the work ranging from technology selection, priority setting, subject arrangement, resource distribution, by using amethod similar to a Delphi survey. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 261 Information society. FISTERA highlighted priority application areas where R&d investments should be intensified in the future, motivated both by S&t developments and by socioeconomic needs 23. FISTERA did influence directions for R&d in ICTS in Europe. Its contribution was, however, difficult to trace in published official documents of the European commission that often do not explicitly refer to sources of ideas. Its results fed and generated a number of debates on the future of information and communication technologies and the development of a knowledge society in Europe. In terms of indirect impact the‘‘Technology Trajectory''concept developed by FISTERA was used by industry and academia as a‘‘thinking tool''.''The FISTERA methodology inspired several national foresight projects, notably in Austria and Hungary. A review of FISTERA by NISTEP underlined the relevance of FISTERA's approach to formulate national science and technology policies also in Japan 24. The Foresight project conducted in Canada through a series of collaborative projects aimed at emerging and frontier technology domains that could be important to national policy development process for the next ten years. The outputs were used to drive the interdepartmental discussions of challenges to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), the capabilities needed to meet the challenges, and how S&t foresight and strategic S&t investments in the new Centre for Security Science could help to acquire those capabilities. The process assisted the new Public security Technical Programme (PSTP) of the Canadian office of the National science Advisor (ONSA. ONSA had been asked to provide advice on a futuresorieente Public security Science and Technology agenda that could be aligned with the US Department of Homeland Security as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North america. The initiative provided focus to the capabilities and skill areas that a new Defence Research & development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science might need to meet the anticipated national security. The outcomes of consensual and instrumental technology foresight activities in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China have played increasingly important role in the policy-making process for science & technology and innovation. For instance the 8th technology foresight provided important support for making the 3rd basic plan for science and technology of Japan. China is planning to make the 12th five years plan for science and technology development by using the knowledge generated from roadmap activity. In the UK, the Development, Concept and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) a Directorate General of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) conducted a foresight process that produced as a key output a report‘‘the DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007 2036''.''The trend-analysis is supported by a wide external consultation of experts in order to make the information included in the report both comprehensive and independent. The work is the product of analysis by the DCDC therefore it could be labelled as exclusive in terms of stakeholder engagement. However, it has aspects of extensive engagement of stakeholders as outcomes are tested against the views of international panel of peer experts through exposure of results in conferences and by commissioning a survey that is consulting leaders in governments, business NGOS and the academic sector. It is updated on a regular basis as new evidence and thinking emerge. This initiative is designed to result in improved quality of defence policy. It is one of the source documents for the development of the UK Defence policy. The outcomes of DCDC Strategic Trends are target to defence decision-makers but it could also have wider impacts in society 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 and opinions, identify and foster alternative and competing coalitions 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 which provides opportunities for creative thinking and the inclusion of diverse and alternative viewpoints that can challenge incumbent and path-dependent approaches hindering especially radical changes in the innovation system. 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. Among the two projects examined in this quadrant, 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, and that‘‘rebound effects''could lead to opposite impacts to that desired (e g . if transportation becomes cheaper and faster thanks to ICTS, this could create more traffic and more energy consumption). Outputs were discussed with both DG Information society and DG Transport and Energy of the European commission. Findings were used also in subsequent JRC-IPTS projects 25. 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, it was planned not to have direct impacts to decision-making. However, the participants from different sectors of the society benefited from the project. It helped them position in the system, network with other stakeholders and in general enhanced their innovation capabilities. The foresight projects identified in Asia seemed to be all consensual; hence this would suggest that foresight projects with open-ended diverse visions of the future are not common in these countries. However, the diversity of viewpoints in Asian countries may come from the richness of activities. Foresight activities in Asian countries are conducted in different levels, such as national level, regional level, sector level and firm's level. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 262 3. 5. Innovations foresight (diverse perspectives and instrumental outcomes) Innovations foresight can be characterised as instrumental processes with diverse future perspectives that generate many ideas, opinions and perspectives, which support the specific foreseen decision-making situation or for the formation of strategic partnerships/joint actions. The driving for diversity of perspectives together with instrumental results are likely to lead to concrete innovation ideas and partnerships that are watered not down by the search for wide consensus within the innovation system. Among the projects analysed, only two projects were positioned in this quadrant. The first one was an internal foresight project in VTT Technical research Centre of Finland. The key foci of the VTT Water Research Roadmap were the creative combination of wide-ranging water related issues at VTT as well as the generation of new R&d initiatives. The instrumental approach and still integration of diverse perspectives was largely possible, because the project was organised internally, which meant that also competitive and delicate issue could be addressed alreadyduring the process. The second project identifiedwas a foresightprocess attachedtofinnish Foresight Forum, whichengageddifferent stakeholder groups, encouragedthemtosubmit ideas on prospective innovations, and explicated multiple perspectives in the evaluation and analysis of these ideas. Drawing upon these lines of thinking, consensual foresight objectives and diversity considerations are complementary perspectives which are needed both in attempts to enhance the performance of innovation systems: for example, the implementation of S&t policies may call for a sufficient degree of consensus about appropriate policy instruments (e g.,, RTD programs), while preparedness for the future can be promoted through the diversity of activities within such instruments (e g.,, projects based on rivalling coalitions and different technological arrangements. 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. This paper contributes to this work by further elaborating the framework of Ko nno la et al. 7 . While the framework is suitable for both the ex-ante and ex post analysis of foresight projects, we elaborate and attest its validity in the context of ex post analysis of a number of foresight projects focusing on sustainability, security and information society and their contribution to policy-making. Our analysis supports the thesis that different classes of foresight projects have respective different types of impacts on policy and society. It is likely that the design and management of foresight projects have to look for cautious balance between different design dimensions in order to accommodate different stakeholder expectations. 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. This is almost a natural function or characteristic of any foresight project that stems from the process itself, but this does not necessarily lead to immediate actions or identification of policy options. 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. The positioning of the projects in the framework (as depicted in Fig. 3 of this paper) helped characterise the projects and the related expectations on them. Here we make the following remarks: Tracing the impacts of foresight is often very difficult. In many cases, policy-makers do not refer to the sources used when decisions are made. Almost all the analysed projects have outcomes that can be characterised as consensual. This is not surprising as one of the important foresight objectives are the priority-setting and common vision-building. However, the lack of projects with outcomes emphasising diverse future perspectives may lead to limited exploration of alternative future pathways which are addressed often as strengths of many foresight methods and approaches. It may often be appropriate to design a foresight process as informative when it addresses a new or emerging (technological field or when the issues are characterised by high uncertainties. This allows addressing diverse perspectives and scenarios as well as common vision-building. However, positioning a project as informative and communicating this characteristic to stakeholders may create difficulties in attracting those stakeholders who wish to be closer to decision-making. The exploration of alternative forms of participation for decision-makers and other participants with serious time constrains can thus be of utmost importance. Projects with the focus on instrumental outcomes have often important informative impacts, including indirect or unexpected impacts. Foresight influences all participants in the process as well as their networks. Furthermore, the outputs are reused often''by actors not considered in the design phase. This systemic nature of foresight may have several ramifications for instance, rationales for co-financing projects. The results of our ex post analysis of foresight projects confirm the wide set of expectations laid on foresight activities. We expect that the developed framework can facilitate the discussion about the expectations and the management of foresight projects and about its impact on policy-making and society at large. There is a clear need for further research on evaluation of foresight impacts not only with the purpose of doing the evaluation of a project but mainly to draw conclusions on how foresight can be improved as an instrument contributing to knowledge creation for policy and decision-making in more general. The conceptual and empirical work on the evaluation of T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 263 foresight is ever more important to position foresight as one of the key supporting tools for policy-making to anticipate how major societal challenges ahead can be addressed such as those tackled in this paper, e g. security, sustainability and information society challenges. The correct positioning and management of foresight is crucial to link it better with policymakkin formulation, which is increasingly based on evidence base at all policy levels and for all policy domains. Furthermore, in order to better address major societal challenges with foresight and other FTA ACTIVITIES we consider that another relevant future avenue might be to enhance the international foresight collaboration in terms of exchange of experiences and the implementation of common foresight projects. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to Jack Smith, Ramon Compan o'and Ioannis Maghiros as well as to anonymous reviewers for their contributions to improve the paper. References 1 JRC-IPTS, Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: impacts and implications for policy and decision making, in: The 2008 FTA International Seville Conference, 2009, available at: http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2008/intro. html. 2009-11-10). 2 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The Rise of systemic instruments 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 , Toward prospective voluntary agreements: reflections from a hydrogen foresight project, Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 259 265.4 L. Georghiou, The UK technology foresight programme, Futures 28 (4)( 1996) 359 377.5 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Evaluation of national foresight activities, assessing rationale, process and impact. technological forecasting and social change, Technological forecasting and Social Change 73 (7)( 2005) 761 777.6 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo , The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Technology analysis & Strategic management 20 (3)( 2008) 369 387.7 T. Ko nno la, T. Ahlqvist, A. Eerola, S. Kivisaari , R. Koivisto, Management of foresight portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organisation, Technological Analysis & Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.8 M. Cariola, R. Secondo, Evolution in the rationales of foresight in Europe, Futures 36 (10)( 2004) 1063 1075.9 T. Ko nno la, V. Brummer, A. Salo, Diversity in foresight insights from the fostering of innovation ideas , Technological forecasting and Social Change 74 (2007) 608 626.10 A. Salo, T. Ko nno la, M. Hjelt, Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy 1 (1 2)( 2004) 70 88.11 O. Helmer, Looking Forward: A Guide to Futures research, Sage, Beverly hills, 1983.12 R. Barre',Synthesis of technology foresight, in Strategic policy Intelligence: current trends, the state of play and perspectives, in: A. Tu bke, K. Ducatel, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada (Eds. Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives S&t Intelligence for Policy-making processes, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-20137-EN, Seville, 2001 , pp. 71 88.13 World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford university Press, New york, 1987.14 Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view Futures 20 (6)( 1988) 606 620.15 M. Castells, The Rise of the network society. The information age: economy, Society and Culture, vol. 1, Blackwell, Malden, 1996.16 European commission, Green Paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors, 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 , available at: http://www. h2foresight. info (2009-11-10). 19 The EU Integrated Project IRRIIS Integrated Risk Reduction of Information-based Infrastructure Systems, available at: http://www. irriis. org/?/lang=en&nav=218; http://www. irriis. org/File. aspx? lang=2&oiid=8661&pid=572 (2009-11-10). 20 Finnish Foresight Forum (in Finnish), available at: www. ennakointifoorumi. fi; www. rpm. tkk. fi/explorer/html/index ennakointifoorumi. html (2009-11-10). 21 FISTERA: 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: http://ipts. jrc. ec. europa. eu/publications/pub. cfm? id=1208 (2009-11-10). 23 R. Compan o',C. Pascu, J.-C. Burgelman, M. Rader, R. Saracco, G. Spinelli , B. Dachs, M. Weber, S. Mahroum, R. Popper, L. Green, I. Miles, 2006, in: 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: http://ipts. jrc. ec. europa. eu/publications/pub. cfm? id=1431 (2009-11-10). 24 A. Fujii, Foresight on information society technologies in Europe, in: NISTEP Science & Technology trends Quarterly Review, no. 18,january 2006, pp. 24 34.25 F. Abadie, I. Maghiros, C. Pascu (Eds.),The EPIS Annual Monitoring Synthesis Report, The Role of ICTS as Enabler for Energy efficiency, the European Perspectives on Information society (EPIS) project, 11/2008, EUR Number: 23553, available at: http://ipts. jrc. ec. europa. eu/publications/pub. cfm? id=1919 (2009-11-10). 26 L. Georghiou, Third generation foresight: integrating the socioeconomic dimension, available at http://www. nistep. go. jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat077oe. html (2009/11/10), in: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of International Conference on‘Technology foresight, Science and Technology'foresight Center of NISTEP, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.27 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes, For Society Transnational Foresight ERA NET, 2006. T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 264

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011