foresight methodology: an overview and...

iFQ 2008R. Popper - Germany

Rafael Popper – [email protected] - Manchester Institute of Innovation Research

Foresight Methodology: an overview and more…

Bonn, Germany 2008


Introductory remarks on Foresight Methodology

In both futures and foresight literatures there have been plenty of discussions about processes, generations, challenges, classifications and various ‘styles’ of forward-looking practices and methods.

(See De Jouvenel, 1967; Boucher, 1977; Coates, 1985; Jungk and Müllert, 1987; Cameron et al., 1996; Bell, 1997; Glenn and Gordon, 1999; Godet, 2000, 2001; Georghiou, 2001; Masini, 2001; Miles, 2002, 2008; Cuhls, 2003; Voros, 2003, 2005; Kaivo-oja et al., 2004; Bishop et al., 2007; Barré, 2008; Popper 2008; Johnston and Sripaipan, 2008; Keenan and Miles, 2008; and Georghiou et al., 2008).

Even though these and many other contributions provide a huge ‘knowledge base’ of definitions, frameworks and experiences using a wide range of real – and occasionally hypothetical – examples,up until now there has not been a systematic and organised effort to explore ‘how are foresight methods selected’ using such a large number of case studies (886 cases).


New outline (inspired by Katy Börner´s Places & Spaces: Mapping Science)

An overview of:

• foresight

• foresight as a process

• foresight methods

– classifications

– common practices

• foresight mapping

– mapping collaboration

– foresight periodic table *

• foresight methodology

– foresight pyramids

– mapping roadmapping

• future foresight methods

Foresight Methodology (Popper, 2008)in The Handbook of Technology Foresight

How are foresight methods selected? (Popper, 2008)in Foresight journal (Volume 10, issue 6)

pp. 44–88

pp. 62–89


Foresight is not mere fashion


Year Country Exercise/Programme Method(s)

Since 1971

Japan 1st to 4th STA surveys Delphi

Japan 5th STA survey Delphi 1991

USA Critical Technologies Others

New Zealand Public Good Science Fund Others 1992

Germany BMFT, T 21 Others

South Korea Foresight Exercise Others 1993

Germany Delphi ’93 Delphi

UK 1st TF Programme Delphi + Others 1994

France Technology Delphi Delphi

1995 France 100 Key Technologies Others

Japan–Germany Mini-Delphi Delphi

Austria Delphi Austria Delphi

Japan 6th STA survey Delphi 1996

Australia Matching S&T to futures needs Others

Spain ANEP Delphi + Others

Hungary TF Programme (TEP) Delphi + Others

Netherlands Technology Radar Others 1997

Finland SITRA Foresight Others

South Africa Foresight Exercise Delphi + Others

Germany Delphi ’98 Delphi

Ireland Technology Foresight Ireland Others 1998

New Zealand Foresight Exercise Others

UK 2nd UK Foresight Programme Others

Sweden 1st Swedish Foresight Others

Spain OPTI Technology Foresight Delphi

South Korea Korean Technology Delphi Delphi

Thailand ICT Foresight Delphi + Others

1999

China TF of Priority Industries Delphi + Others

Others include: scenarios, panels, roadmapping, critical technologies, etc.

Year Country Exercise/Programme Method(s) Japan 7th STA Survey Delphi Brazil Prospectar Delphi Brazil TFP Brazil (UNIDO/MDIC) Delphi + Others France 2nd 100 Key Technologies Others

2000

Portugal ET2000 Others Venezuela TFP Venezuela 1st cycle Delphi + Others Chile TFP Chile Delphi Germany FUTUR Others

2001

Czech Republic TF Exercise Others Turkey Vision 2023 Delphi + Others Colombia TFP Colombia 1st cycle Delphi + Others UK 3rd UK Foresight Programme Others Cyprus, Estonia, Malta eForesee Others Denmark National TF Denmark Others

2002

USA NIH Roadmap USA Others China TF Towards 2020 Delphi + Others Greece Technology Foresight Greece Others Norway Research Council 2020 studies Others

2003

Sweden 2nd Swedish TF Others Japan 8th Japanese Programme Delphi + Others South Korea Korea 2030 Delphi + Others Ukraine Ukranian TF Programme Delphi + Others France FuturRIS Others France AGORA Others Venezuela TFP Venezuela 2nd cycle Others

2004

Russia Key Technologies Others Colombia TFP Colombia 2nd cycle Delphi + Others Brazil Brazil 3 Moments Delphi + Others Romania Romanian S&T Foresight Delphi + Others Finland Finnsight Others Luxembourg FNR Foresight Others

2005

USA 21st Century Challenges GAO Others Finland SITRA Foresight Others

2006 Poland Poland 2020 – TF Programme Delphi + Others

Others include: scenarios, panels, roadmapping, critical technologies, etc.

Evolution of Programmes/Exercises


What is foresight?


What is foresight?

Prospective&

Futures

Foresight

Participation&

Networking

Policy-making&

Planning

• Broadly speaking…

• Foresight is not about– forecasting by experts

• Foresight is more about– sharing a vision and/or a set of objectives

(for our children’s future?)

– promoting trandisciplinarity research

– engaging key stakeholders, including decision- and policy-makers

– drawing upon and creating knowledge networks

– extending the breadth and depth of the knowledge base for decision-making

– organising a long term thinking process


But what type of process?


Foresight is “a process which involves intense iterative periods of open reflection, networking, consultation and discussion, leading to the joint refining of future visions and the common ownership of strategies… It is the discovery of a common space for open thinking on the future and the incubation of strategic approaches”

(Cassingena Harper, 2003)

A more systemic look into the process was done by Miles (2002) who outlined five complementary phases:

Pre-Foresight; Recruitment; Generation; Action; and Renewal.

1

23

5

5

Foresight as a process


1

2

3

4

5

‘Sketching’ the phases of the process


Pre-Foresight

RationalesSponsor(s)ObjectivesOrientationResources- Core team *- Time- Money- Infrastructure- Cultural- PoliticalApproachesTime horizonMethodologyWorkplan- Activities- Tasks- DeliverablesScope- Context- Coverage

Recruitment

Project team *- skillsPartners Sub-contractorsSteering GroupExperts- Thematic- Sectoral- Regional- National- InternationalChampions- Thematic- …InternationalPanelsMethodologistFacilitatorsRapporteurs

Step 1: scanning and understanding major S&T developments, trends and issues

Step 2: mobilising and engaging key stakeholders

Step 3: generating (new) knowledge through the exploration, analysis and anticipation of possible futures

Step 4: shaping the future through strategic planning

Step 5: evaluating

Generation

Existing knowledgeis amalgamated, analysed and synthesised Tacit knowledge is codifiedNew knowledge is generated (e.g. elucidation of emerging issues, creation of new visions and images of the future, etc.)

Action

Advising- Strategies- Policy Options- Recommendations- …

Transforming- Networking- Policy-making- Decision-making- …

Renewal

Learning- Process- ProductsEvaluation- Impacts - Efficiency - AppropriatenessDissemination- Shared Visions- Foresight Culture- …

KNOWLEDGE

Foresight should be carefully planned


What methods can be used?


26. Cross-impact / structural analysis27. Delphi28. Key / Critical technologies29. Multi-criteria analysis30. Polling / Voting31. Quantitative scenarios / SMIC32. Roadmapping33. Stakeholder analysis

20. Benchmarking21. Bibliometrics22. Indicators / time series analysis23. Modelling 24. Patent analysis25. Trend extrapolation / impact

analysis

1.Backcasting2.Brainstorming3.Citizens panels4.Conferences/workshops5.Essays /Scenario writing6.Expert panels 7.Genius forecasting8.Interviews9.Literature review10.Morphological analysis11.Relevance trees /logic charts12.Role play / Acting13.Scanning14.Scenario /Scenario workshops15.Science fictioning (SF)16.Simulation gaming17.Surveys18.SWOT analysis19.Weak signals /Wildcards

Methods which apply mathematical principles to quantify subjectivity, rational judgements and viewpoints of experts and commentators (i.e. weighting opinions)

Methods measuring variables and apply statistical analyses, using or generating (hopefully) reliable and valid data (e.g. economic indicators)

Methods providing meaning to events and perceptions.Such interpretations tend to be based on subjectivity or creativity often difficult to corroborate (e.g. brainstorming, interviews)

Semi-quantitativeQuantitativeQualitative

Classifying methods by their nature


Methods by Type of Approach

• Exploratory– Based on what we know Today– Exploring Possible Futures– Examples:

• Conventional Delphi• Conventional Scenario Workshops• Cross-impact analysis• Trend extrapolation, Etc.

• Normative– Based on what we want/desire for the Future– Planning how to get there from Today– Examples:

• Goals Delphi• Success Scenario workshops• Relevance trees, morphological analysis and roadmapping, etc.


How to link methodsto the ‘the process’?


Type of method

Qualitative

Renewal

● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●

●●●● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●

Action

●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●

Generation

●●● ●●●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●

Recruitment

● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●

●●● ● ●

Foresight Phases

Pre-Foresight

● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ●●●● ● ●● ●

●●●● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●●

Backcasting Brainstorming Citizens Panels Conferences/Workshops Essays/Scenario Writing Expert Panels Genius Forecasting Interviews Literature Review (LR) Morphological Analysis Relevance Trees/Logic Charts Role play/Acting Scanning Scenarios/Scenario Workshops Science Fictioning (SF) Simulation Gaming Surveys SWOT Analysis Weak Signals/Wild Cards

Legend of symbols: little/no contribution [●], some contribution [●●], significant contribution [●●●], major contribution [●●●●]

Potential contribution of qualitative methods

Methods / Activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Linking Qualitative methods


Type of method

Quantitative

Semi-Quantitative

Renewal

●●●

●

●● ● ●

●●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ●●

Action

●●●

●

●● ●●● ● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●

●●●● ●●●

Generation

●●●

●●

●●● ●●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●● ●●

Recruitment

●●

●●●

● ●

●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●

●●●

Foresight Phases

Pre-Foresight

●●●

●●●

●●● ●

●●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●

Benchmarking

Bibliometrics

Indicators/Time Series Analysis (TSA) Modelling Patent Analysis Trend Extrapolation/Impact Analysis Cross-impact/Structural Analysis (SA) Delphi Key/Critical Technologies Multi-criteria Analysis Polling/Voting Quantitative Scenarios/SMIC Roadmapping Stakeholders Analysis/MACTOR

Legend of symbols: little/no contribution [●], some contribution [●●], significant contribution [●●●], major contribution [●●●●]

Potential contribution of quantitative and semi-quantitative methods

Methods / Activities

20

21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Note: the tables (above) provide an impressionistic view of the contribution that 33 methods might make to each phase of the foresight process. The “potential contribution” is represented with bullets. For example: Backcasting may have little/no contribution [●] in the Pre-Foresight, Recruitment and Renewal Phases, whereas significant contribution [●●●] in the Generation and Action Phases

Linking Quantitative & Semi-quantitative ones


Pre-Foresight(scanning, expert panels,

literature review...)

Recruitment(co-nomination surveys…)

Generation(Scenarios, Delphi,

brainstorming, workshops, roadmapping…)

Action(voting, polling, panels…)

Renewal(interviews, expert panels,

impact analysis…)

But, what are the most common methods?


Let’s then map foresight practices!


EFMN: Mapping Foresight Practices in the Wold

• So far, EFMN Mapping has produced a vast amount of information on foresight unprecedented in the world

• The mapping has been useful to understand foresight practicesin Europe and other regions of the world

2005 2006 2007 20082004

437 cases> 800

L0 & L1

767 cases> 1400 L0 & L1

100 cases

846 cases> 1600L0 & L1

2008

> 1000 cases> 2000L0&L1

See http://prest.mbs.ac.uk/efmn/gfo_2007.pdf


EFMN 2004: Building up the Mapping Database

• Early mapping efforts, including indicators, protocols and lessons from EUROFORE helped to build the EFMN database

2005 2006 2007 20082004


Mapping Taxonomy (or Levels)

2005 2006 2007 20082004

• Level 1– year the exercise was created– duration– contact person– name of sponsor– funding– executing organisation– website– number of participants– territorial scope– objectives

L1 L2

• Level 2– types of audiences– types of sponsors– types of methods– countries and regions– types of outputs

• Level 0– name, short description, short

comment, and the time horizon.

L3

• Level 3– research areas

(i.e. Frascati Manual)– markets & industries

(i.e. NACE Classification)– policy impacts– other impacts– results and limitations


EFMN 2006: Increasing the number of cases

• 767 cases in L2 & L3• Great progress in mapping• Key lessons:

– Need for quality control of the data– Need for sophisticated analysis

2005 2006 2007 20082004

100

767

> 1400 L0 & L1

437

> 800 L0 & L1


2007 Report: Mapping European Foresight

2005 2006 2007 20082004

http://prest.mbs.ac.uk/efmn/gfo_2007.pdf


2007 Report: Mapping Country-level Foresight

uk

Top 10 Methods

14

16

16

20

20

24

25

49

50

49

0 60 120

Essays

Interview s

Brainstorming

Trend Extrapolation

Megatrend Analysis

Futures Workshops

Questionnaire / Survey

Scenarios

Expert Panels

Literature Review

Terr itorial scope

1

181

97

3

0 60 120

EuropeSupra national

Sub-nationalTransborder

National

Num ber of participants

61

2136

0 60 120

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

18

10

40

39

52

74

2

11

0 60 120

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts

Lists of Key Technologies

Research & Other Priorities

Scenarios

Analysis of Trends & Drivers

Policy Recommendations

Target audience

10

14

15

38

61

64

104

4

0 60 120

Intermediary organizations

Trades Unions

NGOs

Other target audiences

Trade Bodies / Indust. Fed.

Firms

Research Community

Govt Agencies / Depts

ge

Top 10 Methods

4

6

6

8

9

12

13

15

20

14

0 20 40

Citizens Panels

Trend Extrapolation


Futures Workshops

Brainstorming

Delphi

Expert Panels

Scenarios

Other methods

Literature Review

Territorial scope

2

196

10

2

0 20 40



National

Num ber of participants

37

712

0 20 40

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

2

10

3

6

12

11

27

2

0 20 40

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

7

5

6

8

21

17

35

5

0 20 40


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


2005 2006 2007 20082004


2008 Analysis: Mapping collaboration between Countries

2005 2006 2007 20082004


2008 Analysis: “Spiky Foresight”

2005 2006 2007 20082004

High GERD > 2.4% Medium Low GERD < 1.5%


Towards the European Foresight ‘Periodic Table’?

sp

Top 10 M ethods

4

5

7

9

16

16

22

28

29

24

0 18.5 37

SWOT Analysis

Interview s

Scenarios

Ques tionnaire / Survey

Megatrend Analysis

Brainstorming

Key Technologies

Delphi

Literature Review

Expert Panels

Te rr itorial s cope

6

27

2

1

1

0 18.5 37



National

Number of participants

11

920

0 18.5 37

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

0

0

25

7

4

27

29

1

0 18.5 37

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios

Analysis of Trends & Driv ers


Targe t audience

12

7

3

19

29

27

35

2

0 18.5 37


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


at Top 10 Me thods

2

2

3

3

5

5

6

6

6

6

0 5 10

Interview s

Env ironmental Scanning

SWOT Analy sis

Brainstorming

Sc enarios

Other methods

Literature Review

Futures Workshops

Expert Panels

Delphi

Terr itor ial scope

1

12

6

0 5 10



National

Num be r of participants

11

5

0 5 10

< 5051-200

201-500> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

0 5 10

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts


Research & Other Prior ities

Scenarios



Targe t audie nce

2

2

3

3

5

6

10

0 5 10


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


be

Top 10 M ethods

4

4

5

5

7

7

7

8

11

8

0 8.5 17

Key Technologies

Interview s

Delphi

Brainstorming

Environmental Scanning

Scenarios

Expert Panels

Other methods

Futures Workshops

Literature Review


12

52

7

0 8.5 17



National


12

27

0 8.5 17

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

6

2

3

9

4

1

8

0 8.5 17

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts


Res earc h & Other Priorities

Scenarios

Analy sis of Trends & Drivers


Target audience

2

4

7

9

15

1

1

2

0 8.5 17


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


bg

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

2

2

2

0 1.5 3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Brainstorming

Delphi


Expert Panels

Scenarios

SWOT Analysis

Te rr itor ial scope

12

0 1.5 3



National


1

1

0 1.5 3

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

2

0 1.5 3

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

1

1

3

3

1

1

0 1.5 3


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Res earch Community


cy

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

0 1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Other methods

Expert Panels

Delphi


1

0 1



National


1

0 1

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

1

0 1

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

0 1


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


cz

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

4

4

3

0 2.5 5


Delphi

Citiz ens Panels

Key Technologies

Scenarios

Other methods

Literature Review

Brainstorming

SWOT Analysis

Expert Panels


0

02

3

0 2.5 5



National


3

11

0 2.5 5

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

1

1

3

0 2.5 5

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

2

1

2

1

3

4

5

1

0 2.5 5


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


dk

Top 10 M ethods

2

2

2

2

4

5

5

6

7

6

0 9 18

Other methods

Interview s

Environmental Sc anning

Delphi

Technology Roadmapping

Scenarios

Key Technologies

Literature Rev iew

Ex pert Panels

Futures Workshops


2

113

0 9 18



National


2

15

0 9 18

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

8

2

4

12

6

10

14

0 9 18

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

12

16

18

1

0 9 18


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


ee

Top 10 M ethods

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

3

0 3 6

Citizens Panels

SWOT Analysis


Expert Panels

Delphi

Scenarios

Other methods

Literature Review

Futures Workshops

Brainstorming


24

0 3 6



National


1

2

0 3 6

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

0

2

1

3

2

4

0 3 6

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

2

1

2

1

2

3

6

1

0 3 6


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


fi

Top 10 M ethods

2

3

4

4

7

8

10

17

23

15

0 17.5 35

Key Technologies

Interview s

SWOT Analy sis

Brainstorming

Delphi

Other methods

Sc enarios

Futures Workshops

Literature Review

Expert Panels


2

42

25

2

0 17.5 35



National


11

18

0 17.5 35

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

2

2

2

12

5

17

19

1

0 17.5 35

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

3

3

3

11

21

25

33

2

0 17.5 35


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


fr

Top 10 M ethods

5

5

7

8

8

10

12

21

24

13

0 22 44

Key Technologies

Interview s

Futures Workshops

Megatrend Analysis

Brainstorming

Other methods

Trend Extrapolation

Expert Panels

Literature Review

Scenarios


5

32

2

1

4

0 22 44



National


34

39

0 22 44

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

6

11

5

13

21

24

30

6

0 22 44

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

11

13

7

7

16

21

40

5

0 22 44


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


ge

Top 10 M ethods

4

6

6

8

9

12

13

15

20

14

0 20 40

Citizens Panels

Trend Extrapolation


Futures Workshops

Brainstorming

Delphi

Expert Panels

Scenarios

Other methods

Literature Review


2

196

10

2

0 20 40



National


37

712

0 20 40

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

2

10

3

6

12

11

27

2

0 20 40

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

7

5

6

8

21

17

35

5

0 20 40


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


gr

Top 10 M ethods

1

2

2

3

3

3

3

5

5

5

0 4 8

Citizens Panels

Futures Workshops

Essays

SWOT Analy sis

Literature Review

Key Technologies

Delphi

Sc enarios

Expert Panels

Brainstorming


1

25

0 4 8



National


22

2

0 4 8

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

3

5

6

5

7

0 4 8

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

0

3

1

2

4

5

8

4

0 4 8


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


hu

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

0 1 2

SWOT Analysis

Other methods

Futures Workshops

Expert Panels


Citiz ens Panels

Scenarios

Literature Review

Delphi

Brainstorming


11

0 1 2



National


11

0 1 2

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

1

0 1 2

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

2

1

2

1

2

1

0 1 2


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


ie

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

2

0 3.5 7

n/a

Trend Extrapolation

SWOT Analysis

Other methods

Interview s


Megatrend Analysis

Literature Review

Scenarios

Expert Panels


1

1

5

0 3.5 7



National


4

0 3.5 7

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

2

2

3

5

5

0 3.5 7

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

2

3

4

7

0 3.5 7


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


it

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

2

2

2

4

5

7

4

0 4 8

Futures Workshops

Expert Panels

Delphi

SWOT Analy sis

Sc enarios

Interview s

Other methods

Brainstorming

Key Technologies

Literature Review


2

3

2

1

0 4 8



National


42

0 4 8

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

2

4

1

0 4 8

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

2

1

1

3

6

6

8

1

0 4 8


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


lv

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0 1

Stakeholder Mapping

Multi-criter ia Analysis

Megatrend Analysis

Literature Review

Futures Workshops

Expert Panels


Delphi

Brainstorming

Backcasting


1

0 1



National


1

0 1

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

0 1

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

1

1

0 1


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


lu

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

0 2 4

SWOT Analysis

Scenarios

Key Technologies

Delphi

Citiz ens Panels

Brainstorming

Other methods

Literature Review

Expert Panels



11

2

0 2 4



National


2

11

0 2 4

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

2

2

1

2

0 2 4

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

1

3

2

4

1

0 2 4


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


mt

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

3

0 1.5 3

n/a

Stakeholder Mapping

Other methods

Modelling and simulation

Futures Workshops

Literature Review

SWOT Analysis

Scenarios

Expert Panels

Brainstorming


3

0 1.5 3



National


12

0 1.5 3

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

3

1

3

0 1.5 3

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

2

1

2

1

2

3

0 1.5 3


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


nl

Top 10 M ethods

7

10

11

12

22

28

40

70

104

67

0 74 148

Brainstorming

Backcasting

Futures Workshops


Interview s

Other methods

Trend Extrapolation

Scenarios

Expert Panels

Literature Review


1

96364

0 74 148



National


3

1012

0 74 148

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

7

21

10

54

76

104

4

6

0 74 148

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

47

67

137

7

7

2

4

2

0 74 148


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


pl

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

4

4

2

0 2 4

Key Technologies


Delphi

Citiz ens Panels

Scenarios

Other methods

Expert Panels

Brainstorming

SWOT Analysis

Literature Review


11

2

0 5 10



National


2

1

0 2 4

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

2

1

3

4

1

0 2 4

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

3

3

2

4

1

0 2 4


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


pt

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

2

0 2.5 5

Expert Panels

Essays

Brainstorming

Backcasting

SWOT Analy sis

Other methods

Interview s

Futures Workshops

Sc enarios

Literature Review


1

1

2

1

0 2.5 5



National


1

3

0 2.5 5

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

5

5

0 2.5 5

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

2

2

1

5

1

0 2.5 5


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


ro

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

0 2 4

n/a

Trend Extrapolation

Questionnaire / Surv ey

Interview s

Expert Panels


Delphi

SWOT Analysis

Scenarios

Literature Review


13

0 2 4



National


1

0 2 4

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

1

3

0 2 4

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

1

1

2

4

0 2 4


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


sk

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

0 1 2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Megatrend Analysis

Literature Review

Essays


2

0 1 2



National


n/an/a

n/an/a

0 1 2

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

1

1

1

0 1 2

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

1

2

0 1 2


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


sl

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

2

0 2 4

Key Technologies

Futures Workshops

Expert Panels


Citiz ens Panels

Scenarios

Literature Review

Brainstorming

Other methods

Delphi


13

0 2 4



National


2

11

0 2 4

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

0

0 2 4

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

1

1

4

3

4

1

0 2 4


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


se

Top 10 M ethods

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

2

0 4.5 9

n/a


Interview s

Technology Roadmapping

SWOT Analysis

Scenarios

Key Technologies

Futures Workshops

Literature Rev iew

Ex pert Panels


2

122

2

0 4.5 9



National


1

13

0 4.5 9

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

4

0

4

6

3

6

9

0

0 4.5 9

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Targe t audience

2

1

2

5

7

9

0 4.5 9


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


uk

Top 10 M ethods

14

16

16

20

20

24

25

49

50

49

0 60 120

Essays

Interview s

Brainstorming

Trend Extrapolation

Megatrend Analysis

Futures Workshops


Scenarios

Expert Panels

Literature Review


1

181

97

3

0 60 120



National


61

2136

0 60 120

< 50

51-200201-500

> 500

Com m on outputs

18

10

40

39

52

74

2

11

0 60 120

Others

Technology Roadmaps

Forecasts



Scenarios



Target audience

10

14

15

38

61

64

104

4

0 60 120


Trades Unions

NGOs



Firms

Research Community


2005 2006 2007 20082004


Now that we have data…Can we answer some questions?


Foresight, Volume 10, issue 6: How are foresight methods selected?

• First argument– methods are chosen based on their ‘‘intrinsic attributes’’

• their nature– Qualitative– Quantitative– Semi-quantitative

• their capabilities, i.e. the ability to gather or process information based on:– Evidence– Expertise– Interaction– Creativity

• Second argument– methods are chosen based on fundamental elements and

conditions influencing the foresight process; in other words, foresight process needs matter.


Two questions related to the attributes of methods:

• How is selection influenced by the nature of methods?• How is selection influenced by the capabilities of methods?

Nine questions related to the elements of foresight processes:

3. How is selection influenced by the Geo-R&D context?4. How is selection influenced by the Domain coverage?5. How is selection influenced by the Territorial scale?6. How is selection influenced by the Time horizon?7. How is selection influenced by the Sponsorship?8. How is selection influenced by the Target groups?9. How is selection influenced by the Participation scale?10.How is selection influenced by the Codified outputs?11.How is selection influenced by the Methods mix?


Qualitative vs. Quantitative• Suppose that a particular event E gives an

empirical plot E (filled line).

g1

g2

• Suppose we have two theories, t1 and t2, leading to the plots g1 and g2, respectively (dotted lines)– plot g1 fits better quantitatively– plot g2 has the same shape and

appearance.

E

y

x

• However, as René Thom (1975) points out, the theorist would be likely to retain t2 rather than t1 even at the expense of a greater quantitative error.

• The rationale would be that t2 must be a better clue to the underlying mechanisms of Ethan the quantitatively more “exact” t1.

The difference between

predictions and observations in ∫│E - g1│

is smaller than that of ∫│E – g2│Interval

Is selection influenced by the nature? 1


Yes, it seems so!

Popper (2008)


Pre-Foresight

RationalesSponsor(s)ObjectivesOrientationResources- Core team *- Time- Money- Infrastructure- Cultural- PoliticalApproachesTime horizonMethodologyWorkplan- Activities- Tasks- DeliverablesScope- Context- Coverage

Recruitment

Project team *- skillsPartners Sub-contractorsSteering GroupExperts- Thematic- Sectoral- Regional- National- InternationalChampions- Thematic- …InternationalPanelsMethodologistFacilitatorsRapporteurs

Step 1: scanning and understanding major S&T developments, trends and issues

Step 2: mobilising and engaging key stakeholders



Step 5: evaluating

Generation

Existing knowledgeis amalgamated, analysed and synthesised Tacit knowledge is codifiedNew knowledge is generated (e.g. elucidation of emerging issues, creation of new visions and images of the future, etc.)

Action

Advising- Strategies- Policy Options- Recommendations- …

Transforming- Networking- Policy-making- Decision-making- …

Renewal

Learning- Process- ProductsEvaluation- Impacts - Efficiency - AppropriatenessDissemination- Shared Visions- Foresight Culture- …

KNOWLEDGE

The Foresight Diamond

R. Popper (2008)R. Popper (2008)

Methods relying heavily on the inventiveness and ingenuity of

very skilled individuals

Methods relying heavily on codified information,

data, indicators, etc.

Methods relying heavily on the tacit

knowledge of people with privileged

access to relevant information or with

accumulated knowledge

Methods relying

heavily on the

participation and shared

views of experts and non-experts

Is selection influenced by the source of knowledge? 2


Yes (even if unintentionally!)

Popper (2008)

On “average”foresight studies

use from 5 to 6 methods

Is selection influenced by the source of knowledge?


Pre-Foresight Recruitment

Step 1: scoping the objectives and activities of the exercise

Step 2: mobilising and engaging key players



Step 5: learning

Generation Action Renewal

KNOWLEDGE &SHARED VISION

prospectiveapproaches

target groups

methods mix

codified outputs

participation scale

geo-R&Dcontext

domain coverage

territorialscale

time horizon

sponsorship

Fundamental Elements of a Foresight Process

ASPIRATION

ENGAGEMENT &INTERACTION

participative&

networkingapproaches

COMMITMENT &TRANSFORMATION

planning&

decision-making approaches

INTELLIGENCE & WISDOM

evaluativeapproaches

Let us focus on the Methods Mix

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Is selection influenced by key elements of the Process?


Popper (2008)

Mapping Methods Combinations

Frequency of combinations

L (or blank) = below 19%M = 20-39%H = 40-59%VH = above 60%

Is selection influenced by the ‘methods mix’?


Popper (2008)

Visualising the “Methods Mix”

Popper (2008)




Popper (2008)

Popper (2008)

Popper (2008)

Mapping methods used with Roadmapping




How to design aforesight methodology?


R. Popper (2008)R. Popper (2008)

The Foresight Diamond

http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/Bookentry_Main.lasso?id=3977

Let us explore 2 demo cases

with 6 methods


Scanning

Scanning

Delphi

Wild Cards

Citizen panel

Expert panel

SWOT

Methodology X(Forward)

Delphi

Methodology X (Forward) Evidence+

Broad Expertise

Detailed analysis of main issues around a particular sector/theme of study (sub-contracted).

Large-scale exploratory study assessing the likeliness of occurrence and possible impacts of main issues highlighted by the scanning activity.


Scanning

Scanning

Delphi

Wild Cards

Citizen panel

Expert panel

SWOT

Methodology X(Forward) Wild cards

Delphi


Broad Expertise+

Wild Creativity

Workshop-type activity aimed at identifying possible events which may challenge the occurrence of ‘highly probable’ situations.


Scanning

Scanning

Delphi

Wild Cards

Citizen panel

Expert panel

SWOT


Citizen PanelDelphi


Broad Expertise+

Wild Creativity+

Interaction

Conference-type activity aimed at identifying major public concerns on critical issues.


Scanning

Scanning

Delphi

Wild Cards

Citizen panel

Expert panel

SWOT


Citizen PanelExpert Panel

Delphi


Broad Expertise+

Wild Creativity+

Interaction+

Local Expertise

Reduced group of key stakeholders looking at future implications of main findings.


Scanning

Scanning

Delphi

Wild Cards

Citizen panel

Expert panel

SWOT

Methodology X(Forward)

SWOT

Wild cards

Citizen PanelExpert Panel

Delphi


Broad Expertise+

Wild Creativity+

Interaction+

Local Expertise+

Strategic Creativity

Internal activity (possibly desk-work) aimed at synthesising outcomes in terms of current strengths and weaknesses as well as future opportunities and threats.


What if we combine the same six methodsthe other way around?


SWOT

Expert panels

Citizen panels

Wild Cards

Delphi

Scanning

SWOT

Expert Panels

Methodology X(Backward)

Methodology X (Backward)Strategic Creativity

+Local Expertise

Large-scale activity (e.g. workshop) aimed at identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to a sector / theme / technology / etc.

Groups of experts looking at future implications of SWOT findings and clustering main issues into broader dimensions, such as social, technological, economic, etc.


SWOT

Expert panels

Citizen panels

Wild Cards

Delphi

Scanning

SWOT

Expert PanelsCitizen Panels



+Local Expertise

+Interaction

Regional task forces contextualising main issues and evaluating public acceptance.


SWOT

Expert panels

Citizen panels

Wild Cards

Delphi

Scanning

SWOT

Expert Panels

Wild cards

Citizen Panels



+Local Expertise

+Interaction

+Wild Creativity

internal activity aimed at identifying disruptive events and situations.


SWOT

Expert panels

Citizen panels

Wild Cards

Delphi

Scanning

SWOT

Expert PanelsDelphi

Wild cards

Citizen Panels



+Local Expertise

+Interaction

+Wild Creativity

+Broad Expertise

Large-scale normative study aimed at formulating policy recommendations.


SWOT

Expert panels

Citizen panels

Wild Cards

Delphi

Scanning

SWOT

Expert PanelsDelphi

Wild cards

Citizen Panels

Scanning



+Local Expertise

+Interaction

+Wild Creativity

+Broad Expertise

+Evidence

Internal activity aimed at identifying the success or failure of similar policy recommendations being implemented in comparable contexts, and better informing decision-making.


There are many methodology options, indeed!

Scanning

SWOT

Scenario writing

Workshops

Backcasting

Extrapolation

Literature review

Scenario workshops

Roadmapping

9 methods

Benchmarking

SWOT

Scenario writing

Extrapolation

Roadmapping

Expert panels

Brainstorming

WorkshopsWorkshops

8 methods

Benchmarking

Scenario writing

Delphi

Extrapolation

Expert panel

Interviews

Workshops

7 methods

Benchmarking

Scenario writing

SurveyDelphi

Literature review

Scenario workshops

BackcastingBrainstorming

8 methods

SWOT

Expert PanelsExpert PanelsDelphiDelphi

Wild cardsWild cards

Citizen PanelsCitizen Panels

ScanningScanning

vs.

6 methods

?


What about the futureforesight methodologies?


We need more Science Fictioning (SF) in Foresight

• Dealing with stories assuming that possible events which have not yet materialised have taken place, usually at some point in the future, and elaborates on the consequences of this.

– it is quite common to prepare brief vignettes using SF-like techniques to illustrate one or other point of the imagined future world.

– Such vignettes generally lack narrative drive, but may have considerable illustrative force.

• Commercial SF is often used, mostly informally, as a source of inspiration by people thinking about the future.

• The main challenge

– locating the high-quality SF

• see also Livingstone, 1971, 1978; Miles, 1993; Steinmüller, 1997


We need research on Wild Cards & Weak Signals (WI-WE)

• Usually carried out by small groups of highly skilled people capable of combining expertise, examining data and creative thinking.

• The search for weak signals may be undertaken as part of the process of scanning. It involves the identification of “not necessarily important things” which do not seem to have a strong impact in the present but which could be the trigger for major events in the future (e.g. changes in public attitudes to one thing or another, an emerging pattern of concern about emerging health problems). Finding weak signals is one of the most challenging tasks in futures research and their analysis often leads to the identification of wild cards.

• Wildcards are surprising and unexpected events with low probability of occurrence but with very high impact (e.g. the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, sudden shifts in the dominance of nations or political ideologies, major disasters in environmental or technological systems). These are usually identified by such means as brainstorming, science fictioning and genius forecasting. It has been suggested that gaming and role playing may encourage participants to think of novel patterns of behaviour and responses (see also Ansoff, 1975; Rockfellow, 1994; Petersen, 1999; Cornish, 2003; Mendonca et al., 2004; Steinmüller, 2004; Hiltunen, 2006; Ilmola and Kuusi, 2006)


interconnecting Knowledge for the early identification of issues, events and developments

(i.e. wild cards & associated weak signals)shaping and shaking the future of

science, technology and innovation (STI)in the European Research Area (ERA)

We need new ways of interconnecting knowledge


WI-WE research should look at complexity & other theories

Social

Technological

Economic

PoliticalEnvironmental

Values(Cultural/Ethical)

Demographic

planned or unplannedissue or event (WI-WE)

Social

Technological

Economic

PoliticalEnvironmental

Values(Cultural/Ethical)

Demographic

planned or unplannedsingle or multiple impacts

www.iknowfutures.com


very

low

practically

none

WI-2c WI-2b WI-2a

iKnow WI-WE mapping framework‘P

erce

ived

Pro

babi

lity’

WI-3c WI-3b WI-3a Gradual development

Rapid development

Changing relations

Transforming systems

Creating systems

Type o

f Dev

elopmen

tWI-1c WI-1b WI-1a Surprisingappearance

Weak Signal

P Policy

Disruption

WI Wild Card

WI-1ct WI-1bt WI-1at

P P P

PP

Legend

WI-1aWI-1bWI-1cWI-2aWI-2bWI-2cWI-3aWI-3bWI-3c

WI-1at

WI-1bt

WI-1ct

WI-2at

WI-2bt

WI-2ct

WI-3at

WI-3bt

WI-3ct

WI-T0 WI-T1 WEiKnow FrameworkMulti

Layer

1

2

3

Type of Impact

www.iknowfutures.com


• There is no “ideal” methodological framework providing the “best” combination of methods.

• There is no “ideal” number of methods to be used in a project

• So, the methodology must be chosen after objectives are defined and not the other way around

• The selection of methods may be affected by resources, such as:– project budget

– availability of expertise

– political support

– technological and physical infrastructure, and

– time.

• Having valuable human resources is essential and although such people do not necessarily need to be foresight specialists, they will often require intensive training courses in order to build internal capacities and know-how.

Final remarks (1/3)


We need more and improved prospective analysis• Scanning (with better use of web-based tools).

– E.g. advanced data and text mining tools to analyse documents;

– E.g. statistical aids for network/cluster analysis and visualisation structures;

– co-word and co-citation methods (for instance, to provide guidance as to new clusters of ideas in scientific areas).

• Modelling (using econometric analysis and system dynamics). Computer tools are employed to create and visualise a large set of scenarios, drawing on different assumptions about how the world

• Roadmapping (with more sophisticated computer aids to organise and visualise the process and its results)

• Expert opinion tools – such as Delphi – drawing upon computers and networking, e.g. web-based questionnaire surveys and more discursive approaches.

• Expert systems – to guide practitioners and managers through the process of carrying out foresight – from decision support for managing the foresight process, to aids for application of specific techniques.

Final remarks (2/3)


We need more than interconnection of knowledge

Final remarks (3/3)

But, we also need interconnection of skills

Wisdom


Thank you! [email protected]

foresight methodology: an overview and...

Documents