Web 2.0 for Foresight: Experiences on an Innovation Platform in European Agenda Setting

Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
Seville, 12-13 May 2011

Web 2.0 for Foresight: Experiences on an innovation platform in European agenda setting

1Karel Haegeman, 1Cristiano Cagnin, 2Totti Könnölä, 3GeorgiDimitrov and 4Doug Collins

1European Commission, JRC-IPTS, Edificio EXPO. C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain
,

2Impetu Solutions, Calle Víctor Andrés Belaunde 36, 28016 Madrid, Spain

E-mail:

3European Commission, DG EAC, Brussels, Belgium,

4Spigit, inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA,

Keywords:social platforms, web 2.0 and foresight, innovation, priority setting, community building

Summary

While the private sector has already discovered the wide set of benefits of web 2.0 technologies (McKinsey, 2009), the public sector is only beginning to use these tools. Especially the use of interactive and collaborative tools in FTA for priority setting has been rather limited until today.Examples in both a public and private sector environment suggest great potential for web 2.0 foresight in public organisations and policy-making, both in terms of advancing foresight methodologies and in terms of increasing transparency. This paper develops a framework for designing a web 2.0 foresight exercise, building on the For-Learn Foresight Cycle, experiences from other disciplines such as market research with web 2.0 research, and hands-on project experience from JRC-IPTS. It applies the framework to the design and implementation of a foresight case of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), where a web 2.0 ideation platform was used to collect ideas from research and development communities across the globe for world leading innovation that integrate education, business and research with a specific thematic focus. It is concluded that key elements in the design are clarity about process and outcome objectives, a systematic approach to tool selection, the organisation of a pilot before the launch, a clear view on sense-making from the data collected, and a certain degree of autonomy in the management of the foresight process.

1. Introduction

While the private sector has already discovered the wide set of benefits of web 2.0 technologies (McKinsey, 2009), the public sector is only beginning to use these tools, especially as a tool for foresight. Compared to more traditional ways of (online) stakeholder involvement, social web platforms introduce real time feedback into the process of stakeholder involvement, which allows for a much more interactive and collaborative involvement. Stakeholders get to see each others responses and can react on them. This seemingly simple change has far-reaching consequences in foresight design and management as it is fundamentally changing the way opinions are collected and refined.

The use of web 2-0 has been reported extensivelyespecially in market research. With the introduction of a collaborative dimension in participation, Schillewaert et al (2009) see traditional (market) research move towards ´Connected Research´, with respondents becoming participants and researchers interacting with a group of participants instead of dealing with a set of one-to-one interactions with respondents (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Connected research (Schillewaert et al, 2009).

Coocke and Buckley (2008) see those participants as co-creators with rights to set the agenda, and expect that this tendency could lead to the end of the research model based on a command and control mentality. Loss of control may be one of the main reasons not to engage in collaborative research, but in exchange for this loss the researcher gets more creativity and therefore more added value than in most traditional forms of research.

The use and roles of web 2.0 in foresight are relatively unexploited. Da Costa et al (2008) look at online social networks from the perspective of the Foresight Diamond (Popper, 2008). They interpret the 4 sources of knowledge from the diamond (creativity, expertise, evidence and interaction) as objectives and web 2.0 can collect those types of knowledge. Gheorghiou et al (2009) propose a framework for a Delphi 2.0 platform that may represent the basis of the development of future oriented communities, able of developing complex databases of future trends related tocomplex systems.

Schillewaert et al (2009) distinguish between two types of social networking platforms: Secondary research tools consist of platforms that already exist and are not explicitly meant for research, but which one can provide access to information or research participants. Primary market research applications are platforms explicitly set up for a specific research objective. This paper focuses only on primary research platforms, and explores how the collaborative nature of such platforms impacts on the design and implementation of foresight exercises.

In this paper, we start with the development of a general framework is for the design and management of a (primary) web 2.0 foresight exercise. This framework is then attested against a practical foresight experience for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) performed by JRC-IPTS with support of DG EAC, with the aim to contribute to the policy demand for priority setting for the next wave of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), one of the main instruments of the EIT. The case builds on a web 2.0 foresight platform that was created to collect ideas from research and development communities across the globe for world leading innovation that integrate education, business and research with a specific thematic focus. Lessons drawn from this experience are used to update the framework and to discuss the implications of using a web 2.0 foresight approach in public organisations and for policy-making.

2. A framework for web 2.0 foresight approaches

As a basis for the framework for web 2.0 foresight approaches, the For-Learn Foresight Cycle[1]is chosen, as this generic cycle serves as a guide for any kind of foresight exercise, beit collaborative or not. In the specific web 2.0 framework each step of the foresight explores guiding elements that are of particular relevance for web 2.0 approaches, either by making some general guiding principle more specific to the nature of web 2.0 approaches or by adding new ones. Figure 2 below shows the adapted web 2.0 foresight cycle, which is further detailed in the following sections.

Figure 2: Web 2.0 foresight cycle (based on the For-Learn foresight cycle[2])

2.1 Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach

Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight could consist of the following:

If one of the objectives is not just to extract information from stakeholders, but also to allow participants to learn more than they give.

When one is seeking co-create more added value than with traditional surveys, building on the creativity of co-creation between members of an interactive platform

When community building is targeted

If the project client wants to increase transparency of its organisation or the way it takes decisions

When the client seeks to get support from stakeholders in shaping decisions and actions

Some reasons for not using this approach could be (Schillewaert et al, 2009) unwillingness to give control to participants, aversion to accept and handle critique and provide concrete solutions, the belief that it will solve all the problems, lack of resources and skills, lack of fit between tools and research objectives, if the sole purpose is to be fashionable and not to add value to research, unrealistic sampling requirements, resistance towards the unknown and fuzziness of outcomes and findings at the outset of studies.

2.2 Conditions to analyse

The implications of using a collaborative approach to foresight on the engagement of policy-makers concentrate on the need not only to obtain support and ownership from policy-makers in running the foresight exercise, but also to create understanding and ownership of the methodological approach that is chosen, and the consequences that this approach may have. This requires policy-makers to do the effort to engage in methodological issues. More concretely, understanding and engaging in a web 2.0 foresight approach means understanding and supporting the following possible consequences:

• A web 2.0 foresight approach may involve a greater degree of loss of control than is usually the case in classical foresight exercises. Typically, choosing for a foresight approach in support of a policy demand means that policy-makers share some of their decision power with a wider community of stakeholders, which implicitly involves some loss of control, as the outcomes of the exercise are not known in advance. This degree of loss of control may be bigger in web 2.0 foresight exercises, because of its collaborative and transparent nature.
• Also the form the outcomes will take may not be so clear from the outset. This can be the case e.g. when many different types of information are collected. It is also a possible consequence of the diminished control, which may cause the platform to lead into surprising directions that were not expected from the start (but therefore not particularly undesired).
• In connection with the possible surprising elements that may arise during the process, a certain degree of flexibility to adapt the plan during the course of the exercise may be needed. Taking into account this flexibility from the start can allow for a rapid reaction on changing circumstances. Cooke and Buckley (2008) point in this regard to the need of a relationship between client and researcher that ´allows for much more adjustment during the study, and for a good framework that tolerates researchers to make quick changes as a result of emerging themes.
• The active involvement of stakeholders in a dialogue mode can also raise expectations about involvement in other steps of the process, after the end of the exercise, and put pressure on the organisation that initiated the exercise to become more transparent in the whole process in which the exercise is embedded.

2.3 Scoping a web 2.0 exercise

In scoping a web 2.0 exercise we look in particular at the identification and selection of stakeholders, at the objectives of the exercise and at some attributes that may influence on the design of such exercise.

Stakeholders

As in other foresight exercises an important element in scoping a web 2.0 exercise if the definition of the main user groups to be involved. Possible stakeholders are society representatives (organisations or individuals), policy makers, universities, research organisations, industry. When identifying and selecting relevant stakeholders in a web 2.0 environment it is also important to define the way they will be recruited. Possible channels for recruitment are:

Use of existing databases (or construction of new ones)

snowball[3]

promotion of the platform at existing online platforms

wider online and offline communication plan: press release, post news items on portals, banners on related websites

Objectives:

One can distinguish between objectives related to the expected outcomes and those related to the foresight process. The process related objectives may be influenced by the rationales for organising a web 2.0 foresight exercise (see step 1 of the web 2.0 foresight cycle). The outcome related objectives may not be easy to define very concretely, as the form that the outcomes take may also be rather unclear (see step 2 of the web 2.0 foresight cycle).

In order to increase the motivation of stakeholders to engage in the exercise, it is of key importance to translate the objectives into concrete outcomes (tangible and intangible) for each user group. Possible motivations for participants in web 2.0 foresight exercises could be:

• learning about the content and about working in a web 2.0 environment
• contributing to shaping future decisions that are taken based on the foresight exercise
• build their own reputation as experts
• market own ideas to the community
• build new networks
• seeking fame or fun (Bughin, 2008)

The objectives will serve as reference point for decisions throughout the process and later for evaluation. The will also serve as guidance for taking decisions regarding the attributes for design described in the next paragraph.

Attributes for the design of web 2.0 foresight exercises:

In scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise, some specific design attributes may be interesting to look at to better understand the objectives of the exercise. It concerns the degree of representation, the degree of openness, the degree of steering and the degree of freedom for members to engage.

Degree of representation of different user groups:

In some exercises it may be necessary to have a balanced representation. This may refer to a balance between user groups, a sectoral balance, or other elements related to the profile of participants (such as age, geographic location or expertise). Whether representation is needed depends on the objectives of the exercise. E.g. when the exercise seeks to select and validate predefined policy priorities its design may pay more attention to representation than when the objective is to collect ideas to formulate potential priorities. The need for representation may also differ for different stages of the same foresight project[4]. Seeking representation can be done during recruitment, while running the exercise or in the analysis.

• When seeking representation one may prefer recruitment methods that have a relatively higher degree of control as regards the number and profile of the sample (e.g. databases[5], focused user groups on social networking sites).
• Another possibility for increasing representation is the use of moderation and techniques for enhancement of activity of platform members during the exercise (see step 5: running an exercise) in order to favour the activation of passive members[6] from underrepresented groups[7].
• A third way of inserting representation is collecting information about the type of user when registering, which allows to analyse results by user group.

The degree of participation may also impact on the communication plan supporting the platform (see step 5: running an exercise).

Degree of openness of the platform:

Platforms can completely open, completely closed, or semi-open. This does not refer to the need for a login, but to the accessibility for a predefined set of participants (closed) who are personally invited to participate or accessibility for any member of the relevant stakeholder groups (open). An example of a closed web 2.0 platform is the platform of the 2011 Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis on the role of FTA in preparing society for emerging issues[8]. The Security Jam was an open platform (Insert link). Mixed approaches can e.g. combine personal invitations with a snowball, with targeted advertising, etc.

The degree of openness depends on the objectives of the exercise and can change in every stage of the process.

Degree of steering of the platform activity:

Although web 2.0 approaches lend themselves less to a ´command and control´ approach, they still offer many opportunities for steering platform activity, though in a more indirect way. Possible reasons for such steering involve increasing the activity on the platform (a lively platform is more interesting to come back too), improving existing proposals or issues formulated on the platform, steer the content of the platform to focus more on the objectives or expected outcomes, increase representation of different stakeholder groups, increase creativity by stimulating different points-of-view. Some ways to steer the platform activity could be:

• Moderation on the platform: Platform moderators can stimulate the discussion on all or some specific topics by asking questions, adding comments, flagging topics, move topics from development stage to maturity stage[9] (e.g. now ready for voting)
• Targeted messaging of platform members based on their individual behaviour: e.g. ´You haven't visited the platform for the last week, check out the following new items´; ´Send your idea/topic to people you know and invite them to comment/rate it´; ´Check out ideas/topics/comments of people who viewed/commented/rated your idea/topic´;
• Tools for drawing attention to specific highlights on the platform: use of rankings, flagging, tagging, summaries of discussions by platform ´journalists´.

Degree of freedom for platform members to engage

A platform with a high degree of freedom for platform membersto engage in the exercise could be reflected by some of the following characteristics:

• platform members can add new topics for discussion
• they are engaged in shaping the next stage(s) of the exercise, in the analysis and/or in the dissemination of results
• summarised information on their behaviour and that of others is available and displayed in a transparent way on the platform

This attribute is related to the degree of steering, although both attributes are not necessarily contradictory. A platform can have a high degree of freedom for members to engage and at the same time have a high degree of moderation to support creativity and increase platform activity.

2.4 Web 2.0 methods and tools

The number of web 2.0 tools that are available in the market have increased to last couple of years, which makes it not obvious to select the right tool for a web 2.0 exercise. Many of these are primarily used in a private context, e.g. in support of market research or private sector innovation. In addition, tools are not the same as methods, although they are strongly connected. The selection of the right methods and tools depends on a series of factors, and therefore differs on a case-by-case basis. However some general guidelines are proposed based on IPTS experience with foresight methods and tools in general and web 2.0 foresight in particular.

1. Objectives and related needs for analysis

2. Methods applied in the analysis:

Brainstorming, voting, network analysis, online panels, online scenario building,...