Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010003-04 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 3 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages 3 6 DOI: 10.3152/030234210x484766; http://www. ingentaconnect. com/content/beech/spp Introduction to a special section: Impacts and implications of future-oriented technology analysis for policy and decision-making Karel Haegeman, Jennifer C Harper and Ron Johnston Experiences of recent years place a premium, for governments and individuals, on being able to discern the possible shape of the future: what is likely to influence it, and what can be done to prepare for it. This special section is selected based on papers from the Third International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 16 17 october 2008 at Seville, Spain, which addressed the challenge of increasing the impact of future-oriented technology analysis on policy and decision-making. HE RECENT ONSET OF CRISES AND challenges ranging from climate change, finanncia and economic downturns, to security threats highlight a rising need to incorporate more forward-looking approaches into the decisionmakkin processes of public and private organisations and stakeholders all around the world. However there is no clear evidence yet that this dynamic conteex has led to a significant increase in the use of such approaches. The contributors to this special section of Science and Public policy believe that forward-looking approaches need further tailoring in order to suit better the needs of decision-makers and their changing environment, and that there is an urgeen need to inform decision-makers of the potential value of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA APPROACHES (Johnston and Cagnin, 2010). Therefore, the aim of this special section is to refine FTA METHODOLOGIES in order to increase their impact in policy-making. With this purpose in mind, this introduuctor paper sets out the general framework for approaching this topic. First, it suggests a specific definition of FTA, identifying its different possible roles for policy and decision-making. It then formulaate a set of general recommendations with the intentiio of improving the policy impact of fta. Last but not least, it introduces the different contributions to this special section one by one, highlighting the way in which these different papers propose to redefine FTA in specific policy-making contexts. The papers that form this special section were selected from those presented at the Third Internatiiona Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis held 16 17 october 2008 in Seville, Spain. This biannual conference provides a common platform for user communities of foresight, forecasting and technology assessment to reflect on these challenges. The third conference focused on the impact that FTA can have on policy and decisiionmaking and its implications. Defining FTA and its impact on policy and decision-making FTA is a generic label that groups a number of forward-looking methodologies used to better T Karel Haegeman is at the Institute for Prospective Technologicca Studies, Knowledge for Growth Unit, Edificio Expo WTC, C/Inca Garcilaso 3, E-41092 Seville, Spain; Email: karelherrmanhaegeman@ec. europa. eu. Dr Jennifer Harper is at the Malta Council for Science and Technology, Villa Bighi, Kalkara CSP 12, Malta; Email: Jennifer. harper@gov. mt. Professor Ron Johnston is at the Australian Centre for Innovattio Ltd (ACIIC), Faculty of engineering, University of Sydneey Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; Email: rj@aciic. org. au. Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 4 anticipate and shape future technological developmennts mainly, technology foresight, technology forecasting and technology assessment. The FTA labbe brings together a set of widely differing techniqques and several scholars have proposed different classifications of these techniques. The different dimenssion used to classify these different FTA techniqque include: the type of technique (qualitative versus (semi) quantitative), the type of approach (exploratory versus normative), or the type of knowledge source (expertise-interaction/creativityeviddence (Eerola and Miles, 2008; Popper, 2008; Saritas, 2006. Scapolo and Porter (2008) propose 13 families grouping more than 50 FTA METHODS, building on a typology proposed during the first FTA conference in Seville by the Technology Future Analysis methods Working group (see Table 1). Keenan and Popper (2007) defined six principles to distinguish FTA from other policy-support techniqques future-orientation, participation, evidencebassed multidisciplinarity, coordinated mobilisation of people and resources, and action orientation. Not all techniques described in the classifications mentioone comply to the same extent with all six principlles For example, many quantitative techniques usually have a small participatory base, while purely qualitative approaches tend to have a weaker evidence base. The principles proposed by Keenan and Popper can be used as strict selection criteria to define whether or not a methodology belongs under the FTA umbrella. But they could also be considered as qualitattiv criteria, measuring the degree to which a techniiqu can be considered to be part of the FTA toolbox. Its average score can then be defined as its FTA-score. Table 2 shows examples of modelling and horizon scanning. Horizon scanning is a rather new FTA tool, as further described below, and could become a 14th family of methods in Scapolo and Porter's classificcation The scores on the six principles can also differ for the same tool, depending on the context in which it is applied, as is shown in the examples in Table 2. Some authors recommend the use of speciifi combinations of tools and approaches in order to build more robust methodologies (Rader and Porteer 2008. If combinations of tools and approaches are selected well, they can result in a higher overall FTA score. Refining FTA METHODOLOGIES with the aim to imprrov their impact on policy and decision-making requires a clear definition of what this impact can be. At first sight, the degree of action-orientation of any FTA is likely to determine the degree of its impact on policy and decision-making. However, other characteristics of FTA can influence its impaact depending on the functions of FTA in a particular context. Karel Haegeman is a scientific officer at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commisssion His activities focus on both advancing and applying foresight methodologies in the EU. He has a masters degree in business economics and in marketing, and has worked previously in innovation policy, general economic policy and market research. Dr Jennifer Cassingena Harper is the director of policy within the Malta Council for Science and Technology with responsibility for national research and innovation strategy and foresight. She represents Malta at EU level on the Joint research Centre Board of Governors, the Euro-Mediterranean Monitoring Committee for Research and Technology development and the Framework programme 7, Regions Programme Committee. Professor Ron Johnston Phd, FTSE is the executive directto of the Australian Centre for Innovation Ltd (ACIIC. He has worked for more than 30 years in pioneering better understtandin and application of the ways that science and technology contribute to economic and social development, of the possibilities for managing research and technology more effectively, and of the new roles for innovation in the global knowledge economy. Table 1. Future-oriented technology analysis methods (Scapolo and Porter, 2008) Families of methods Sample methods Creativity approaches Theory of Inventive Problem solving (TRIZ), future workshops, visioning Monitoring and intelligence Technology watch, tech mining (Porter and Cunningham, 2005), web mining (van de Lei and Cunningham, 2006) Descriptive Bibliometrics impact checklists, state of the future index, multiple perspectives assessment Matrices Analogies, morphological analysis, cross-impact analyses Statistical analyses Risk analysis, correlations Trend analyses Growth curve modelling, leading indicators, envelope curves, long wave models Expert opinion Survey, Delphi, focus groups, participatory approaches Modelling and simulation Innovations systems descriptions , complex adaptive systems modelling, chaotic regimes modelling, technology diffusion or substitution analyses, input output modelling, agent-based modelling Logical/causal analyses Requirements analysis, institutional analyses, stakeholder analyses, social impact assessment, mitigation strategising, sustainability analyses, action analyses (policy assessment), relevance trees, futures wheel Roadmapping Backcasting, technology/product roadmapping, science mapping multipath mapping (Robinson and Propp, 2006) Scenarios Scenario management, quantitatively based scenarios, different emphases and dark scenarios (Punie et al. 2006), science theatres, video (Steyaert et al. 2006; Decker and Ladikas, 2004) Valuing/decision-aiding/economic analyses Cost-benefit analysis, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) and scorecard analyses (Sripaipan, 2006), analytical hierarchy process, data envelopment analysis, multicriteria decision analyses Combinations Scenario-simulation (gaming), trend impact analysis Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 5 Six functions of FTA for policy-making are: informing policy; facilitating policy implementation; embedding participation in policy-making; supporting policy definition; reconfiguring the policy system; and having a symbolic function. These functions were an important outcome of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis held in 2006. The exteen to which one or more of these functions have been fulfilled can be considered as the degree of impaac on policy-making. Refining FTA for more impact on policy and decision-making With a view to improving the impact of fta on policy-making and thus on the extent to which FTA succeeds in fulfilling the above-mentioned functions, the Third International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis arrived at various general recommendations for increasing the impacts of FTA ACTIVITIES in policy-making, such as: Do not think of impacts at the end. Rather, start with the impacts and their larger implications early enough to engage clients and stakeholders in the strategic question of how FTA can improve both their preparedness and ability to move fast when the signals or threats are there. Make sure the client's policy commitments as well as communication resources are provided well for and planned early in the process. This is not something to be discovered along the way. Establish explicit expectations and measures to assess performance. Understand the depth of engageemen and the learning process that can be possible. Stay connected to leadership. This can be done tacitly if necessary but should be done as formally as possible when the opportunity is there Keep the message simple and keep improving it through rigorous pursuit of impact. Dedication to quality, insights, effective communications and innovation are also important. Translate and transfer FTA outputs into policy and decision outcomes. What has been accepted by many FTA practitioners as‘post-foresight, 'and hence not their responsibility, should now be recognised as an integral part of the FTA PROCESS. Apart from these general recommendations, individuua papers presented at the conference proposed a wide variety of methodological approaches that could improve policy impact. The papers selected for this special section of Science and Public policy explore how both public and private organisations are able to deal with the issue of uncertainty by incorpooratin forward-looking methodologies into their decision-making processes. This renders decisiionmaking smarter and more capable of tackling expected future challenges. Although the applicatiion described in the papers are very different, their methodologies contribute to the convergence of a variety of forward-looking tools. Furthermore, by exploring new mixes of FTA TOOLS they contribute to the creation of FTA techniques that are more adaptive to clients'needs and to context characteristiics Last but not least, this special section also contribbute to the identification of key success factors in the application of these techniques. The paper by van Rij looks at horizon scanning from an adaptive foresight angle by combining the experiences and data of three governmental horizon Table 2. FTA scores for modelling and horizon scanning FTA score for modelling FTA score for horizon scanning Characteristic Score Comment Characteristic Score Comment Future orientation***Future orientation***Participation*(*Consultation of experts for certain parameters**Validation of modelling output in a workshop***Validation through wide consultation Participation**(Depends on size of community involved Evidence-based***Evidence-based*Multidisciplinarity***Multidisciplinarity***Coordinated mobilisation of people and resources*Coordinated mobilisation of people and resources*Action oriented*Action oriented*Total**Total **Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 6 scans in the UK, The netherlands and Denmark, as developed in the ERA NET Forsociety Project. The paper highlights the range of purposes this tool can serve, by challenging policy-makers to look at uncertaaintie and unexpected futures, in order to deveelo more resilient policies towards sustainability. The analysis leads to specific process recommendatiion for national horizon scannings related to how data are gathered, analysed, synthesised and used. In general, the paper also recommends connecting horiizo scans to more focused foresight activities. It concludes with a proposal to build a European netwoor for using joint scan data and exchanging best practices and methodologies. Adaptive foresight is applied by Abadie et al. to the highly uncertain environment of the European creative content industries as part of the European Perspectives on the Information society project. The project used a tailored combination of methods in order to respond to clients'needs and the particular characteristics of a fast changing sector. The paper addresses a range of emerging issues and their possiibl impacts throughout all stages of the process in order to improve our understanding of possible futurres The limits of current methodologies and the need for further methodology development in this area are highlighted, due to the fact that the project did not lead to direct policy measures. The paper by Calof and Smith contributes to the definition of successful foresight studies by identifyiin a set of critical success factors for governmentlle foresight beyond selecting an appropriate budget and methodology. They conclude that foresight prograamme need a clearly identified client, a clear link with today's policy agenda and propose some reseaarc questions to further analyse these critical succees factors. Their analysis is based on the results of two surveys of selected international foresight practitiioner and leading foresight organisations, conduccte by Canada's Office of the National science Advisor and the Telfer School of management at the University of Ottawa, and supported by Agriculture Canada and the Smart Economy Project. Damrongchai et al. describe an appropriate mix of foresight methods that was applied in a research projeec of the Asia-pacific Economic cooperation aiming to better understand the complexity of emerging infectious diseases (EID. The methods combined bibliometric analysis, an online survey and a scenario building in order to better understand the factors involved in the initiation and spread of emerging diseases. The scenarios revealed an EID lifecycle model, which helps to understand how technology can be used to combat EID at every stage of their lifecycle. The project also created a new network of scientific and technological experts in the area of biosecurity, providing an opportunity for furthhe cooperation in this area. De Moor et al. develop a novel approach for incorpooratin more user-driven innovation strategies in companies'product development processes using‘living lab'research. They describe how users can be involved in the innovation process in a sustained and effective way and their insights can be translaate into technical requirements. The authors descrrib how user involvement can be applied during three different research stages in the innovation process, using future mobile applications as a casestuudy The analysis is based on the results of the Reseaarc on Mobile Applications and Services project, a consortium of industry partners and the Interdiscipliinar Institute for Broadband Technology founded by the Flemish government. The methodological framework proposed in this paper is relevant for the development of policies aiming to match technologgica innovations better to societal needs. References Decker, M and M Ladikas (eds) 2004. Bridges between Science Society and Policy. Technology assessment: Methods and Impacts. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New york. Eerola, A and I Miles 2008. Methods and tools contributing to FTA. Paper presented at Third International Seville Conferennc on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 16 17 october 2008, Seville, Spain. Johnston, R and C Cagnin 2010. The influence of future-oriented technology analysis: addressing the Cassandra challenge. Futures (in press. Keenan, R and R Popper (eds. 2007. Guide to Research Infrastruccture Foresight. Brussels: European commission. Popper, R 2008. Foresight methodology. In The Handbook of Technology foresight: Concepts and Practices, L Georghiou, J C Harper, M Keenan, I Miles and R Popper (eds.),pp 44 88. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Porter, A l and S w Cunningham 2005. Tech Mining: Exploiting New technologies for Competitive advantage. New york: Wiley. Punie, Y, I Maghiros and S Delaitre 2006. Dark scenarios as a constructive tool for future-oriented technology analysis: safeguaard in a world of ambient intelligence (SWAMI. Paper presennte at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 28 29 september 2006, Seville, Spain. Rader, M and A Porter 2008. Fitting future-oriented analysis methods to study types. In Future-Oriented Technology Analysiis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, C Cagnin, M Keenan, R Johnson, F Scapolo and R Barré (eds..Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer verlag. Saritas, O 2006. Systems thinking for foresight, Phd thesis. PREST, Manchester Business school, University of Manchester. Scapolo, F and A l Porter 2008. New methodological developmeent in FTA. In Future-oriented technology analysis: Strateegi Intelligence for an Innovative economy, C Cagnin, M Keenan, R Johnson, F Scapolo and R Barré (eds..Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer verlag. Sripaipan, C 2006. Foresight in a nonprofit organisation: a case of the Technology Promotion Association (Thailand Japan. Paper presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 28 29 Septembbe 2006, Seville, Spain. Steyaert, S, S Eggermont and H Vandebosch 2006. Towards the desired future of the elderly and ICT: policy recommendations based on a dialogue with senior citizens. Paper presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 28 29 september, Seville, Spain. Van de Lei, T E and S w Cunningham 2006. Use of the internet for future-oriented technology analysis. Paper presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, held 28 29 september 2006, Seville, Spain

< Back - Next >

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