Theme 1: Methods and Tools Contributing to FTA

Theme 1: Methods and Tools Contributing to FTA

Main findings within this theme:

FTA has made progress in developing its methodological base and in embracinginnovation such as real time Delphi probes, use of technology roadmaps in differentstages of the foresight process, and more effective use of web platforms.

There still seems to not be any general rule for planning and ordering the process offoresight; most processes involve multiple methods tailored to the need, the client, theurgency etc.

Key challenges and opportunities ahead include; defining the most effective pre foresightenabling conditions, and framing procedures; developing sustainable linkages to policymakers and learning systems; integrating risk assessment into foresight more centrallyand developing models for social foresight that resonate with stakeholders.

Scenarios are still a strong point and remain a central tool for integrating other methods, inparallel or subsequent to and this is because they are flexible, engaging for clients andcan be designed to be both context dependent and knowledge sensitive i.e. individualsand communities can become futures protagonists when they apply their own foresightcraft intelligence.

Over concern with getting the methods right can actually reduce flexibility this appears tobe why NISTEP in Japan has recently broadened its scoping of foresight beyond thetechnical Delphi and now into the social context for innovation - seeing how foresight can be used throughout the society.

One aspect of this (a new trend?) is that FTA is being regularly factored into the widercontext of innovation systems design and policies although this seems to be highlydependent on the national context for such policy approaches.

Policy makers also are looking at FTA and foresight and asking what is new- since theyare ebbing faced with new and ever more daunting challenges and do not want the sameold foresight responses that seem incapable of pointing the plausible pathways forward.

Theme 2: The use and impact of FTA for Policy and Decision Making

Main findings within this theme:

The practice of foresight is starting to seriously align with key innovation sectors, and policydomains of governments at national and regional levels. Success factors are becoming morewidely understood and applied and impacts are starting to emerge at least in the learning,engagement and strategies of key players. These are positive developments, and the gapsare also becoming more evident so that a new stage in foresight development appears likelyready to begin.

Our focus should be pragmatic- both to reach the key clients- policy makers and todemonstrate relevance to their needs which are not expressed usually in foresight theoryterms theory is presently more sophisticated then practice, so we need pragmatic solutions. Urgency also remains a key element of the need and there is a climate of urgency for foresightto have impact at the many levels where policy is negotiated. It is also essential that we keep experimenting with new approaches and methods that suitthe client context; Understanding why users are not able to receive, translate or act upon good foresightinformation is also a critical gap e.g. Katrina, financial crisis, etc.Users also clearly want reduced uncertainties, alignments and outcomes that matter;FTA is just one of many tools that policy can apply and integrate to make it a preferredtool requires: greater attention to the client, strengthening the reservoir of foresight knowledge, better policy informing and strategic counselling, policy facilitating and networking, impacting R&D agendas ( i.e. policy research ) relevant to policy futures,… (Findings related to the Anchor Paper)
Questions and issues raised, relevant to this anchor paper: Is FTA receptor capacity a function of the relative freedom we now have to conduct futureassessments- in a Maslovian type of manner?How can we more effectively frame our impacts with better metrics to be able to defendbudgets and demonstrate the impacts?We may have a greater illusion of freedom and the importance of impact and so FTA isan obvious response, but clearly it needs strengthening. One capacity that has been missing is extensive historical analyses how should this berectified.

Theme 3: FTA in Research and Innovation

Main findings within this theme:

There is a constant tension between foresight and FTA with conflicting views on which is asubset of the other. We need to consider what we get out of this taxonomy.

In terms of methodologies most of the exercises reported were using classic approaches (suchas Delphi and scenarios) with their own refinements but these were largely dealing withincremental or linear futures rather than engaging with potential major disruptions. It is also riskyto let methods get in the way of clear visions of the future - a trade off between being systematicand being flexible.

Several of the exercises reported had experienced difficulties in meeting potentially conflictingneeds of different key stakeholders, for example between ministries responsible for research andthose responsible for the economy or sectors.

An important prerequisite for a successful exercise is the need for mapping in advance ofcontext, institutional setup, capacities and stakeholders.

There were significant constraints in the supply of people expert in foresight methods or withthe capacity to train domain experts in these methods. This problem ultimately needed to beaddressed by building foresight capacity into the university curriculum.

There is sometimes a mismatch between institutions and the scale and scope of the FTA issuesthey engage with - they do not have the capacity to take forward the results that emerge.

Most presentations put focus on the idea that policy integration between different policies is amajor consequence of foresight approaches.

The granularity issue raised in the plenary session was a recurrent problem for all of thoseengaged in priority setting (linked also to the expectations of different stakeholders.

Through adaptive, embedded approaches we are seeing foresight better customised to fit thepolicy system. There are doubts as to whether clients are willing to face up to disruptive systemchange (although we had counter-example from the current German foresight). There isdissonance between the government systems (decision making systems in society) on the onehand and a growing willingness on the other hand to embrace heterogeneity, complexity,spontaneity and creativity. There is a parallel with systemic innovation more generally which canonly take place when routines are disrupted.

Tailoring foresight to field specificities requires framing the policy and the framework foranalysis. This can be characterised by the institutional arrangement and the knowledge dynamics.In contrasting sectors, GM plants and nanotechnology, needs for different types of foresightemerge. For example, for GM, because of limited cooperation there is a need for consensusbuildingand alignment whilst integrating new elements. In nanotechnology, there is a need foralignment of the sub-systems and creating trust for innovation.

A case-study of the future for ICT and mobile teleworking highlighted the importance of a widerange of non-technological policies related to shop opening hours, childcare etc demanding moreattention to the policy mix. The discussion suggested that the technology is not the right startingpoint for such an exerciserather it should engage with the bigger frame of mobility ortransportation to get away from mere incrementalism. This in turn led to the T in FTA to bequestioned.

In the broader concept of the growing importance of demand-side innovation policy, userdriveninnovation is becoming increasingly important and FTA approaches need to seek ways ofmoresystematic and direct user involvement. There is a growing focus on future users and futureexperience in user-driven innovation. A presentation on a living lab approach led to debate onwhether this has to be technology/service push from firms or whether it allows for servicesadapted or even organised by users.

In an application of a demand-driven futuring technology in manufacturing (Manufuture), theapproach used brought together demand-driven foresight with roadmapping, impact assessmentand monitoring. A resulting matrix mapped RTD pillars with the demand sectors. This approachhas proven effective as seven of the topics addressed by Manufuture areas were identifiedthrough this exercise.

The intersection of a core societal problem, the ageing population with a technological area isbased on cognitive science (the brain-machine and the brain-computer interfaces). While a largearray of future technological applications were presented, these are subject to user acceptance (which may be different within and outside healthcare). Cognitive sciences are also socialsciences.

In a national policy context, FTA can be used to reduce information asymmetries and to betteralignment programme priorities and implementation. An example from ANR, the French ResearchFunding Agency highlighted the effectiveness of this approach as it forces clarification of theunderlying paradigm for funding risky frontier research where time is of the essence and theinvolvement of external players (international scientists) is critical. Initially the drive is to achieveconsensus by reducing information asymmetries but after initial phase (3 years) the emphasis wasless on FTA for consensus and more on FTA to promote disruption and creativity in launching newideas so important for frontier research.

The use of FTA for building shared visions between the public and private sectors, definingappropriate institutional design and stablising the context to focus on core mission highlights anemerging combination of rationales for FTA. Recent work to inform the design of the EIT(European Institute of Innovation and Technology) highlights a more practical use of FTA fromdefining the extent of flexibility and operative autonomy in the decision-making structure in relationto priority-setting and financial support, to specifying the profile and role of companies, the level ofinterdisciplinarity, and criteria for selecting projects.

Theme 4: FTA and equity: new approaches to governance

Main findings within this theme:

Governance reflects the need for new policy and decision making styles due to the transformation of societies and situations as a result of various factors including globalisation, environmentalconcerns, a more knowledge intensive work and lifestyle. With respect to this, the theme of 'FTAand equity
new approaches to governance' provided evidence of how FTA can support theinclusion of a wide variety of stakeholders in shaping decisions at the various levels of governance(e.g. at the national, regional/city, and various thematic levels). The theme addressed the need formultiple stakeholders' participation on public policy and corporate decision making and in theirimplementation processes.

During the conference a special attention was given to the inclusion of youth both in long termsocial plan and in understanding future developments of society and economy as well as impactsof science and technology (S&T). Another important aspect was that of highlighting how FTA cansupport intermediary user organisations, which should represent a wide range of individuals insociety, in influencing innovation and business decision making.

New FTA approaches tailored to specific contexts (such as the use of images to reflect whatchildren believe are likely and desirable futures) as well as the combination of quantitative andqualitative tools (such as building indicators to better understand the competitiveness of nationalinnovation systems based on a compilation of past data and using surveys to collect futureoriented data) show that having a systemic view of the particular situation under scrutiny and to fitthe overall FTA exercise into the shorter cycle of policy and decision making are both critical forbuilding long term impacts.

In this respect getting those in power and responsible for decisions involved in the process isimportant for developing ownership and commitment to actions. At the same time, FTA activitieswhich are continual and with the active participation of different stakeholder groups representingsociety is also paramount for building visibility for FTA practice as well as trust and understandingwithin society, not to mention impacts in decision making processes.

Issues such as quality of participation (i.e. genuine, inclusive and effective) and inclusive foresightappear to be critical future developments to ensure that policy and decision making processes are responsive and transparent to societal needs, concerns, values and expectations. Inclusiveforesight recognises that there is no plasticity in society and that there is a need to deal with thelack of trust and also to recognise those issues which cannot be addressed by S&T. Moreover, itacknowledges that FTA practices are at the interplay of science and environment (what ispossible?); technology and economy (what is feasible?); and socio-economic, politics and values(what is desirable?).

One of the main outcomes which were also raised in the anchor paper of theme 4 is that there is aneed to move toward the embedding forward-looking participatory practices in overall processesof strategic policy and decision making. Important aspects to be further discussed and addressedby the FTA community are thus related to education (within schools, university and postgraduatedegrees) and literacy in forward looking practices for policy and decision makers, and citizensalike. Some of the key questions still to be addressed by the FTA community (i.e. practitioners,academics and policy and decision makers) are:

How FTA methods and processes can support a move towards genuine governance and thusmore democratic societies?
How far building citizen's capacity in FTA methods and processes leads to more participation in decision making?
How can it make sure that visions of different stakeholders can be harmonised andrepresented in the final decisions, outcomes and products?
How can it contribute to governance modes that are more responsive to risk society perceptions, values and apprehensions?
How can it help corporate leadership in creating balanced value across a firm s value and supply chains, building upon strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR)?

Theme 5: FTA in Security and Sustainability

Main findings within this theme:

The theme 5 addressed how FTA can address security and sustainability and have impact onrelated policy and decision-making. The anchor paper addressed the sustainability referring to theecological, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, and the security referringto the condition of being protected against danger or loss that originate from outside such as war,disaster, civil unrest, vandalism, or sabotage. Security is typically related to critical infrastructures.While both security and sustainability issues are complex, uncertain and often irreversible,sustainability tend to address long-term changes, whereas security is more focused on currentchanges in society. The papers and posters under this theme reported the process, the use ofmethods and the achieved outcomes of the exercises. The key messages of the presentations canbe summarized as follows.

Horizon Scanning is receiving increasing policy interest, especially in the UK. Scanning emergingissues on security and sustainability is useful, but it is as important as that to develop alternativeframeworks for interpreting identified issues and what they mean together.Appropriate granularity of units of analysis is highly important for relevant findings. Multi-levelapproaches support addressing both breadth and depth of the issues. It is also worth look forbalance between catalyzing individual vs. joint-actions.

Historical process oriented analysis of specific fields of innovation system, e.g. photovoltaic solarpanel sector, can be helpful for a policy design, for instance based on the functions of innovationsystems. In such analysis, it is worth considering also guiding visions in different phases as wellas the developments of other niches and regimes in the wider techno-institutional context.International foresight projects can enhance awareness and networking, for instance in the field ofemerging infections diseases. The recommendations have to take into account different nationalcontexts.

Nanotechnologies have potential important impacts on the energy sector. New emerging solutionsare likely to have global markets.

Impact assessment practice is widely integrated in the evidence based policy, e.g. in theEuropean Commission. Foresight practice could benefit from sharing experiences.This theorydriven practice may miss some relevant aspects in policy, but too strongly policy driven practicemight lead excessively incremental rather than more radical advances.

Modelling is useful for understanding complex systems, e.g. of global agricultural production. Theapplication of models together with qualitative foresight tools calls for models easy to understandand adapt to specific decision-making conditions.

Adaptive foresight can be useful in the emerging fields such as creative content industries. Havingimpact on policy is however very difficult especially in case of high uncertainties of futuredevelopments.

Context matters, it is increasingly important to position the foresight exercise in the specifictechno-institutional conditions taking into account also organizational practices. For instance, incase of critical infrastructures, e.g. water and waste water management, it is crucial to understandthe path dependent management practices.

Combined use of methods, such as scenario work and multi-criteria decision methods (MCDM), can provide flexibility to tailor the exercise in the specific context. MCDM can be used also forevaluating perceptions of clients before and after the foresight process. This may help tounderstand also the impacts of foresight in the system.

It can be concluded that there is a need in the future to analyze the theme(s) of sustainability &security looking at specific fields (i.e. water, energy, etc) to enable a better understanding of whatFTA has already achieved and how FTA can support and have impact in the future.