using foresight to improve the science-policy relationship · 2015 (socintec) 6. eu research and...

Using foresight to improvethe science-policy relationshipUsing foresight to improvethe science-policy relationship

EUR 21967

FIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

March 2006

Interested in European research? RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes, events, etc.).It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:European CommissionDirectorate-General for ResearchInformation and Communication UnitB-1049 BrusselsFax: (32-2) 29-58220http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research Directorate K – Social sciences and humanities; Foresight Unit K2 – Scientific and technological foresight Scientific Officer: Elie Faroult ([email protected])Communication Officer: Marie-Christine Brichard ([email protected])

Using foresight to improvethe science-policy relationship

This document is the final report of contract number SDPF-CT-2004-00010 entitled“Improving the science/policy relationship with the help of Foresight: a European Perspective”

2006 EUR 21967

March 2006

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed

LEGAL NOTICE:

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://www.europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006

ISBN 92-79-02010-2

© European Communities, 2006 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

List of all Foresight studies and activities implemented in the framework of the European S&T Foresight Knowledge Sharing Platform

1. Monitoring foresight activities in Europe and fostering their European dimension (TNO), EFMN project (www.efmn.info)

2. The future of R&D in services: implications for EU research and innovation policy (PREST)

3. Emerging Science and Technology priorities in public research policies in the EU, the US and Japan (CM International)

4. Perspectives of national and regional research and innovation systems in an enlarged EU 2015: specialisation, complementarities and competition (Logotech)

5. The future of research and innovation policies in an enlarged EU: Key issues 2015 (Socintec)

6. EU research and innovation policy and the future of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy (ISIS Europe)

7. Scenarios of future science and technology developments in emerging economies 2015 (Ernst&Young)

8. Scenarios for future scientific and technological developments in developing countries 2005-2015 (PREST)

9. Professions with a Science & Technology dimension in Europe 2015: Implications for education and training policies (Rand Europe)

10. Improving the science/policy relationship with the help of Foresight: a European perspective (Rand Europe)

11. Support to mutual learning between foresight managers, practitioners, users and stakeholders of policy-making organisations in Europe (IPTS), FOR-LEARN project (http://forlearn.jrc.es)

All studies will be published and can be downloaded from the address: http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/reports.htm

Foresight and science/policy relationship

Preface

This report is the final report of the project “Improving the science/policy relationship with the help of Foresight” prepared for DG Research. This project formulated practical guidelines for optimising the policy contribution of Foresight at the European level. As a first major application of these guidelines, we attempted to design a European Foresight on European RTD policy in the area of transport that integrates the goals of sustainable development and requested feedback from various experts by means of a web survey.

This report summarises the main results of this project. It identifies a set of principles that, if followed, ensure that Foresight makes an effective contribution to policy development. It also contains a draft set of guidelines and checklists for implementing these principles. Finally, it presents a discussion of main issues that were raised during a culmination session. These issues particularly addressed the European dimension of a Foresight and the practical consequences of the presented principles and guidelines. For more information about this project, contact Andreas Ligtvoet ([email protected]). RAND Europe Newtonweg 1 2333 CP LEIDEN The Netherlands +31 71 524 51 51 [email protected]

4

mailto:[email protected]


Table of Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................4

1. Introduction ................................................................................................6 1.1 The aims of this project................................................................................. 6 1.2 What is Foresight?........................................................................................ 7

1.2.1 Orientation ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Policy objectives................................................................................ 10 1.2.3 Methodological approach .................................................................... 11

1.3 The structure of this report .......................................................................... 13

2. Project approach ........................................................................................14

3. Roadmap for Foresight ...............................................................................17 3.1 The roadmap in overview.............................................................................. 17 3.2. Decide whether or not to conduct the exercise ................................................. 18

3.2.1 Define the topic and specify the objectives ............................................ 19 3.2.2 Recruit the problem owners ................................................................ 21 3.2.3 Assess the feasibility of the exercise..................................................... 21 3.2.4 Commit to the Foresight ..................................................................... 21

3.3 Design of the exercise .................................................................................. 21 3.3.1 Involve the right stakeholders ............................................................. 21 3.3.2 Build political support......................................................................... 24 3.3.3 Allocate responsibility and resources for conducting Foresight

to dedicated professionals.................................................................. 25 3.3.4 Select appropriate Foresight techniques................................................ 27

3.4 Conduct the exercise.................................................................................... 28 3.4.1 Think in time .................................................................................... 28 3.4.2 Focus on disagreement as well as consensus ......................................... 30 3.4.3 Give tailored outputs that lead to action ............................................... 32

3.5 Obtain feedback .......................................................................................... 34

4. Discussion and conclusions ........................................................................36 4.1 Practical issues for European Foresight ........................................................... 36 4.2 The European dimension in Foresight.............................................................. 37 4.3 Overall conclusions ...................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Key informants consulted ............................................................41

Appendix B: Project bibliography ....................................................................44

Appendix C: Foresight exercises scanned ........................................................49

Appendix D: The online questionnaire .............................................................61

5


1. Introduction

1.1 The aims of this project The main objective of this project is to develop a set of practical guidelines for how Foresight activities should be conducted so that their contribution to policy development at the European level is optimal. As proof of principle demonstration, we designed a European Foresight exercise that could contribute to European Research and Technology Development (RTD) policy in the area of transport, while considering the goals of sustainable development.

One of the main motivations behind this study is the absence of a systematic roadmap of the steps needed to embed Foresight firmly within the policymaking process.1 Although there are examples of good practice in this respect among the large number of completed and ongoing Foresight exercises (and we make liberal use of these examples), they had not yet been examined carefully and brought together in an accessible format. Given our focus on practical guidelines that optimise the policy contribution of Foresight, we did not provide a comprehensive discussion of the selection of social scientific Foresight techniques and approaches,2 but instead used this base as needed to relate the ways in which Foresight feeds into the policy process. The focus on European Foresight is motivated by a number of considerations. A European Foresight exercise seems to be pertinent given the increasing interconnectedness of the Member States and regions of Europe. In many policy areas, such interconnectedness has fostered the development of European level policies and the coordination of national and regional policies at the European-level. Foresight is a tool for long-term public policy planning that now appears to be as relevant at the European level as it has been at the regional and national levels. The focus on RTD policy and the goals of sustainable development is an area that is central to Europe’s vision of its future, encapsulated in the Lisbon Council’s goals, in which economic dynamism and competitiveness progress together alongside sustainability, employment and social cohesion. Moreover, it is an excellent development and testing ground for our practical guidelines. Achieving the vision encapsulated in Lisbon requires a commitment from policymakers to take a long-term view. A future consistent with this vision depends on the availability of particular technological capabilities. Planning to promote the development of these capabilities is the raison d'être of RTD policy, the core topic of this study. For RTD policies to contribute to sustainable development, they need to address societal issues beyond the traditional boundaries of particular sectors. One implication of this is that in the Member States of the European Union, long-term planning can only be effective if the broader European context is taken into account. 1 We acknowledge that general practical guidelines for regional Foresight have been formulated: Gavigan, J.P., Scapolo, F., Keenan, M., Miles, I. Fauhl, F., Lecoq, D., Caprlatl, M., Di Bartolomeo, T. eds. A Practical Guide to Regional Foresight. FOREN Network, December, 2001. 2 For example, Hjelt Mari, Paivi Luoma, Erik van de Linde, Andreas Ligtvoet, Janneke Vader, James Kahan: Kokemuksia kansallisista teknologia-ennakoinneista (Experiences with national technology Foresight studies), Sitra report 4, Helsinki, 2001. RAND participated in the project leading to this publication. Other references are given in the initial project bibliography.

6


1.2 What is Foresight? National technology Foresight studies first emerged in the 1960s in the realm of US defence and were primarily quantitative. There were no clear distinctions between technology Foresight studies and forecasts. In the US, followed shortly by Japan and Europe, the defence example was extended to non-military technological development. The 1980s mark the differentiation of Foresight from forecasting. The view of technological and societal development as non-linear or even chaotic—and therefore as not easily predictable—came to be more widely accepted. At the same time, Foresight methods were extended beyond econometric and quantitative modelling techniques from operational research. More emphasis was placed on networking and follow-up activities. From the 1980s to the mid 1990s Foresight exercises focused on industrial competitiveness and critical and emerging technologies. In the past ten years, the emphasis on technology has been reduced. It is now recognised that the entire innovation system should be developed systematically, and that attention needs to be devoted not only to technological innovation. Economic growth is now regarded as only part of the objective of planning, and the term "technology Foresight" has been replaced by just plain "Foresight". Figure 1.1 illustrates the development of Foresight studies throughout the last decades. The shift in emphasis from forecasting to Foresight is one of the manifestations of the changing relationships among science, policy and the wider public. The changes in these relationships are characterised by demands for, and recognition of the need for, broader participation in decision-making. The key elements of scientific and technological knowledge that need to be brought together for successful innovation are located in different groups, sometimes scattered around the globe. Foresight’s emphasis on bringing together dispersed groups, which sometimes have little standing relationships with each other, reflects recognition of this development. Further, there have generally been increasing demands for transparency and participation in policymaking in the second half of the 20th Century. Foresight meets these demands by facilitating the participation of a wide range of stakeholders, including those who do not traditionally participate in decision-making. Our final report will include a more extensive discussion of the development of Foresight in the context of the changing science/policy/public relationships.

7


Figure 0.1 Development of Foresight studies throughout the last decades

Industrial

Entire Innovation System

Key Technologies

Basic Sciences

Main ObjectivePreferred means

Military

Well-being of society

Industrial

Entire Innovation System

Key Technologies

Basic Sciences

Main ObjectivePreferred means

Military

Well-being of society

1960 1990 1995 20001980 Source: Hjelt Mari, Paivi Luoma, Erik van de Linde, Andreas Ligtvoet, Janneke Vader, James Kahan: Kokemuksia kansallisista teknologia-ennakoinneista (Experiences with national technology Foresight studies), Sitra report 4, Helsinki, 2001. Foresight projects also attempt to strengthen the networks among participants. The first large-scale exercise to make use of networking was in the UK in 1993-1994; since then, a number of studies have copied that format and claimed its benefits (e.g., New Zealand, Germany, Sweden). Foresight studies formulate and explore visions of the development of science, technology and society. These visions aim to recognise promising technology and application areas, including the likelihood of success of the development by emphasising the relevant innovation system structures and forms of co-operation amongst different players. No two individual Foresight studies are the same, but the following points are essential to all.

• Broad and large societal, scientific and technological scope

• Attempt to prioritise

• Effort towards long-term and systematic thinking

• Strong connection with the development of innovation systems

• Emphasis on co-operation among different actors

• Attempts to stimulate creative thinking and the formulation of visions Foresight is not forecasting; a Foresight study does not try to create the most probable vision of the future. Instead, it is a proactive examination of innovation policy, concentrating on producing analytical information in the service of policies. Foreseeing the development of technology and society is an essential asset for all actors in an innovation system. Both the private and public sector need to look ahead reactively ("what is likely to happen and what should we do about it?") and proactively ("what can we do to make it happen or to avoid it?"). The private

8


sector generally looks ahead within a timeframe dictated by a company's growth and rate of return. The public sector looks at least as far ahead, if not further. Many forms of Foresight exist, sometimes within the same study. The three major categories upon which Foresight can be differentiated are elaborated below:

1. Orientation

1. Policy objectives

2. Methodological approach

1.2.1 Orientation

With respect to orientation, Foresight exercises can be categorized along two dimensions:

• Technology vs. Society driven

• Instrumental vs. Informative

The figure below illustrates the analytic dimensions “technology-driven versus society-driven” and “informative versus instrumental”.

Figure0.2 Classification of Foresight studies

Technology-driven

Instrumental

Info

rmat

ive

Society-driven

Japan

France -100 Key Techs.

Ireland

China

ItalyUSA - New forces

Spain

The NL - Tech radarGermany - T21

German - DelphiFrance - Delphi

South Korea

The NL - ICES-KIS

UK Foresight

Austria

Portugal

New Zealand

South Africa

Australia

IndiaThe NL - Sector councilsGerman - FUTUR

Sweden

Hungary

Source: Hjelt Mari, Paivi Luoma, Erik van de Linde, Andreas Ligtvoet, Janneke Vader, James Kahan: Kokemuksia kansallisista teknologia-ennakoinneista (Experiences with national technology Foresight studies), Sitra report 4, Helsinki, 2001. Circled countries refer to those examined in the Sitra project.

9


Some exercises are clearly technology-driven (‘technology-push’, ‘supply-oriented’). Typical examples of these are exercises that have created lists of critical technologies. However, the growing trend has been for society-driven (‘demand-pull’) Foresight studies that begin with future problems in environment, health, employment, etc. and examine how technological and social developments may and should interact. Instrumental Foresight studies put an emphasis on producing recommendations on concrete measures for innovation policy. Informative Foresight studies on the other hand focus on producing information for decision-makers and other stakeholders. Each orientation has its merits. In making investment decisions linked with relatively short-term technology development and in monitoring investments in other countries, an exercise that emphasises technology and is instrumental in nature can be very interesting. However, to find ideas for research themes that look at the society from a larger perspective, a society-driven informative exercise may be the main source for innovative ideas. In seeking ideas for policy development, instrumental exercises aim more clearly at implementation. Sustainability, one of the foci of the Foresight exercise we are developing in this project, is society-driven and instrumental. It is worth mentioning that the use of Foresight for sustainability has changed focus over time. As awareness of sustainability has developed, the foci of Foresight studies have shifted from technologies relevant to ‘end-of-pipe’ cleanup, to those that span the spectrum of production to use.

1.2.2 Policy objectives

Policymakers can have a wide range of objectives with Foresight studies. The primary goal has almost always been to set priorities and to improve society’s well-being. In that light, it is perhaps interesting that the identification of negative impacts of technology on society has been given very little attention. The studies respond differently to the question whether or not to use Foresight to guide funding. Sometimes, the formulation of insights into strategies for direct finding is objectives (e.g., Technology Radar in the Netherlands and Austrian Foresight), while other times it is (e.g., UK, Ireland, New Zealand). Examples of objectives that public policy Foresight studies can pursue are shown in the table below.

10


Table 1.1 Examples of policy objectives of public policy Foresight studies

1. Increase societal and economic well-being ! Economic growth and national competitiveness. ! Societal well-being, covering social, environmental, cultural and

economic factors. ! Identification of solutions to problematic areas. ! Understanding the interaction between technology and the society.

2. Define priority areas for technology policy ! Make a survey of national technological development. ! Stimulate development in priority areas of technology development and

research; thus stimulate the development in these areas. ! Better understanding the interaction among technologies and to realise

gains resulting from this interaction. ! Allocate funding for research and the improvement of industrial

competitiveness. 3. Develop technology and innovation policies

! Improve the co-operation among different stakeholders. ! Develop the planning and implementation of technology policy. ! Understand the best methods and use of Foresight.

4. International co-operation outreach ! Strengthen international work on Foresight, learn from the experiences

of other countries and promote the know-how from one’s own country. ! Identify global trends (technology development, the development of the

markets and the mega trends). ! Benchmark national against international development of technology.

A focus on sustainability links to all the goals mentioned. For example, because sustainability is a concept that must cross political boundaries, the international co-operation outreach is essential. The goal of both societal and economic well-being is relevant since it fits into the ‘new green’ approach that attempts to resolve the apparent trade-offs between the pursuit of economic and environmental goals.

1.2.3 Methodological approach

Over the last decades, there have been three basic methodological models for Foresight studies. These models strongly reflect the main objectives of the studies.

• Delphi. Since 1971, Japan has conducted large Delphi surveys where experts react to topics such as the realisation time of different technologies and the relative position of Japan compared to other countries. These surveys have been used as models for Delphi surveys conducted in other countries, so much so that ‘Delphi’ in the context of Foresight has come to mean the Japanese use of that method.

• Critical lists. Since the end of the 1980s, the approach followed by the US government has been to create lists of so-called critical technologies, beginning with the 1991 National Critical Technologies Report conducted by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. These listings of critical

11


technologies have also been conducted in France, the Netherlands and Germany.

• Panels and networks. The national Foresight study conducted in the UK in the years 1993-1996 organised the work into ‘panels’ that each independently examined a specified area or social problem. The panel drew heavily on the networks of its members. This procedure has been followed in subsequent studies such as the ones in South Africa, Sweden, Austria, Hungary and Ireland.

These approaches are associated with particular countries and time periods, as illustrated in the figure below. Lists of critical technologies are clearly an American way of going about Foresight. Delphi studies, although invented in the USA, really gained recognition through the extensive and repeated application in Japan. Europe, and more specifically the UK, has turned the panel (or task-force) approach into a professional method. Foresight exercises concentrating on sustainability have mainly made use of panels and networks. An example is the sustainability Foresights carried out in the Netherlands by a governmental, interdepartmental Program for Sustainable Technology Development (the Dutch acronym of this program is DTO). Figure 0.3 Three methodological clusters of Foresight studies

USA (critical technologies)

German 1993

Japan 5th delphi

Japan (delphi surveys since 1971)

German 1998USA New Forces

German FUTUR

UK First round (panels)

UK Foresight Sweden

Hungary

1970 – 1980 1990

1998

2000

1994

1996

1992 South Korea

South Africathe NL Technology Radar

German T - 21

France 100 critical technologies

IrelandAustria

Japan 6th delphi

France delphi

Source: Hjelt Mari, Paivi Luoma, Erik van de Linde, Andreas Ligtvoet, Janneke Vader, James Kahan: Kokemuksia kansallisista teknologia-ennakoinneista (Experiences with national technology Foresight studies), Sitra report 4, Helsinki, 2001.

12


1.3 The structure of this report Chapter two, immediately below presents the overall methods and activities applied during the conduct of the project follows this introductory chapter. The aim of that chapter is to provide understanding of how we reached the ultimate objective of this report.

The following chapter reports the main findings of our work. This consists of a roadmap for designing and conducting Foresight that contributes to policy development accompanied by a set of guidelines and checklists for navigating this roadmap.

Chapter four, the final chapter, presents the key issues related to the practical and European dimensions of conducting Foresights as they were discussed during the culmination session of this project, and provides some overall conclusions.

The appendices contain additional information on the interviews with key informants conducted, bibliography, the Foresight exercises reviewed, and the email survey.

13


2. Project approach

This project consisted of four main work packages, each comprising a number of tasks. These tasks were all aimed at establishing the ultimate objective of the project to develop a set of practical guidelines on how Foresight activities should be conducted. Chapter 3 presents the cumulative findings of all these activities. In this chapter, we give an overview of the focus and the outcomes of the underlying activities to provide an understanding of how the ultimate objective was accomplished. For more detailed background of the activities and intermediate findings of the project, we refer to several Appendices.

Work Package 1. Refinement of approach

Work Package 1 consisted of tasks needed to prepare the ground for the analyses needed to formulate practical insights into the most appropriate ways to conduct Foresight exercises. The tasks consisted of

(1)Doing a quick scan on Foresight literature.

The literature that we consulted is represented by the bibliography in Appendix B.

(2)Conducting key interviews with stakeholders in the European Foresight community and in the RTD policymaking community.

Many of these interviewees conducted what are regarded as "best practice" Foresight studies. A listing of the people contacted can be found in Appendix A.

These first activities resulted in an inception report delivered privately to DG Research that refined the approach and identified particular topics of attention, based on the quick-scan and interviews. Work Package 2. Identifying factors affecting Foresight effectiveness

The tasks of Work Package 2 consisted of

(1)Reviewing a set of Foresight exercises from different stakeholders’ perspectives.

By means of desk research, we analysed recent Foresight studies in order to review which studies have been effective in achieving their objectives. The timeframe of the selected exercises balanced (recent) state-of-the-art practices with accountability. This means that the Foresight studies were recent, but old enough to enable the assessment of their outcomes.

The results of this activity are contained in Appendix C of this report.

(2)Formulating a set of factors that possibly influence the effectiveness of Foresight exercises.

Through a series of key informant interviews, we delineated the different stakeholder objectives and insights on Foresight exercises. Analysis of these objectives helped to identify how stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of Foresight studies. The result of this task was an initial list

14


of possible factors influencing the effectiveness of Foresight and the stakeholder perceptions on these factors.

Work Package 3. Design set of draft guidelines and checklists

Work Package 3 consisted of two activities:

(3)Developing a list of principles and guidelines for the

implementation of effective Foresights.

Based on the outcome of Work Package 2, we identified the input and external factors that affect the Foresight process and how they affect the Foresight process and drafted a list of nine principles. In designing the draft guidelines and checklists, we provided detailed recommendations on how to implement these success factors.

(4)Testing the application of the principles in a sample Foresight proposal by means of an e-mail-based survey.

An email survey was sent out to the members of the SUMMA network. This network was created by the SUMMA project (2002-2005), an effort sponsored by DG TREN to support policymakers by providing them with a framework and tools for making trade-offs, where appropriate, among the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability when formulating transport policy. This network membership list contained approximately 200 names of people who were involved in the project, researcher s and policymakers. We attempted to validate the principles in a survey based upon a prospective Foresight exercise for sustainable transport. For a full presentation of the survey, see Appendix D. This survey did not have an acceptable response rate, possibly because the principles were too generic or the instrument was not sufficiently relevant to the prospective respondents. We did derive some general lessons and feedback on the principles and factors presented in the proposals, but were unable to analyse the different answers in more detail and therefore could not achieve the objectives of this task. The activities of WP3 were translated into a set of draft guidelines for the implementation of Foresight in European (RTD) policy and a draft check list for the translation of long term goals relating to sustainable development into RTD policy in a second report.

Work Package 4. Refine and validate draft guidelines and checklists

In this work package, the set of practical recommendations and checklists, as synthesised in WP3, were validated, refined and demonstrated during a culmination session, to which selected experts, key informants and representatives of the Foresight and RTD communities were invited. For a list of these participants, see Appendix A.

The culmination session was held with a view to:

• Validate the set of recommendations on the conduct of Foresight;

• Where necessary, refine the set of recommendations; and

15


• Demonstrate support for the recommendations.

During the session, participants received an overview of the recommendations formulated and the processes through which they were formulated. The session included breakout sessions, whereby groups of around six participants focused on particular recommendations and formulate specific responses, and plenary sessions in which these sub-groups reported back. The results of the culmination session and the refinements made on the recommendations on the conduct of Foresight have been incorporated in this final report.

16


3. Roadmap for Foresight

This project began by examining five successful Foresight exercises, and from them extracted nine principles for conducting exercises. These nine principles were generally acceptable in a series of interviews with the participants of the original exercises and selected other Foresight experts. Later, we presented the principles to a full-day workshop of 20 experts in the field of Foresight and/or sustainable transport. While they generally accepted the principles, they suggested a number of valuable amendments, most of which were in the nature of being more practical and concrete.

From all of these efforts, we have synthesized a Roadmap for Foresight, based on the earlier principles, but that is more directive and concrete in terms of specifying how to conduct a Foresight, whether at the regional, national, or European level. The roadmap consists of four stages in sequence, each of which contains specific aspects, often sequenced themselves. In this chapter, we present this roadmap as the culmination of the project.

3.1 The roadmap in overview The roadmap consists of four stages, in a fixed sequence, as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 0.1 A roadmap for Foresight

A roadmap for foresight

Define topic, specify objectives

Think in time

Subject matter expertsForesight professionals

Action orientation

Stakeholder participation/support

Conduct the exercise

Decide whether or not to do the exercise

Recruit problem owners

Select the appropriate techniques

Consider disagreement as well as agreement

Think about next steps

Assess feasibility (bring in foresight professionals) Commit to the exercise

Evaluate foresight process

Evaluate foresight consequences

Think about next steps

Refine topic, objectivesas necessary

Design the exercise

Feedback

17


1. Decide whether or not to conduct a Foresight exercise: Foresight, done correctly, takes labour, time and money. It should not be undertaken lightly, nor should it be undertaken unless there is some confidence that its ends should be achieved.

2. Design the exercise: Once the commitment has been made, the exercise must be designed. In this design, it is important to include three different classes of participants: Foresight professionals who will guide plan and lead the study, subject matter experts who will ensure the evidence base is valid and up-to-date, and stakeholders, whose views and values will be given full value.

3. Conduct the exercise: In the conduct of the exercise, it is important to consider the right timing of decisions and the time orientation of the Foresight exercise, to be open to where consensus exists rather than trying to force consensus, and to maintain a focus on actions that can be taken as a result of the exercise.

4. Engage in ongoing feedback: A Foresight exercise needs a process evaluation of all of its steps. Although it might be difficult to remediate things that in hindsight might have been done differently, this is not always impossible; moreover, lessons learned for doing the next Foresight are always helpful. In addition to evaluating the process, the outcome of a Foresight exercise needs to be evaluated—this in terms of whether the recommendations were adopted and, if so, what the consequences of adoption were. Finally, the entire exercise should be subjected to an after-Foresight review in order to plan the next steps—including adjusting recommendations, changing implementation plans, or starting the Foresight cycle anew.

Each of these four main steps can be broken down into aspects, and most of the aspects can further be detailed to provide concrete guidance in conducting Foresights. It is to this that we turn for the bulk of the remainder of this chapter.

3.2. Decide whether or not to conduct the exercise

In deciding whether or not to conduct the exercise, we begin two aspects that occur in interaction. One is the definition of the topic and the objectives to be achieved and the other is the recruitment of people who are sufficiently dedicated to the exercise that they will commit intellectual and financial resources to it. The interaction typically begins with a champion of a particular exercise, who markets the exercise concept while refining it to suit the needs of potential subscribers. Once a core idea is accepted as worth considering, then the feasibility of the exercise must be considered. Is it financially and technically feasible? Will the results have the opportunity to influence policy? To accomplish this, a mini-Foresight exercise is often necessary. Finally, a decision to undertake the exercise is taken, thus triggering the design step. Here, we further elaborate on the four aspects involved in deciding whether or not to conduct the exercise.

18


3.2.1 Define the topic and specify the objectives

A Foresight exercise involves a lot of people, takes a lot of time, and costs a lot of money. It should not be undertaken on a whim. Earlier, the objective of Foresight was to understand what technologies were the best ones to invest in; sometimes this is still the case. However, increasingly, Foresight is aimed at addressing a social problem, such as employment, cyber crime, or sustainable environment. It is important that the topic be explicit, and that the objectives of the Foresight be concrete. Already at this stage, before the Foresight has begun, there should be thought about the possible results of the exercise and how they will be expressed and implemented. Identify the objectives of the Foresight exercise:

To identify the objectives of the Foresight exercise, the problem it is intended to address needs to be defined. A problem consists of a discrepancy between the current state of affairs and the desired state of affairs over which policymakers or other stakeholders may have some influence. There are two additional dimensions to defining the problems Foresight projects aim to address. First, in Foresight, problems may also consist of differences between the possible or expected situation in the future and the desired state of affairs in the future. Second, many of the problems addressed by Foresight involve uncertainty, either attempts to reduce uncertainty or the formulation of strategies for action in the face of uncertainty. The definition of the problem to be addressed by Foresight defines the objectives of the exercise. If possible, these objectives should be quantifiable, with a view to subsequent evaluation.

For example, the Flood and Coastal Defence Project in the UK Foresight Programme provides an example of a specification of aims that focuses sharply on outputs:

To produce a challenging and long-term (30-100 years) vision for the future of flood and coastal defence in the whole of the UK that takes account of the many uncertainties, is robust, and can be used as a basis to inform policy delivery.

The Hungarian Technology Programme’s objectives also refer to the desired outputs, but supplement this with a reference to the network-building function of Foresight:

To identify opportunities and threats and areas for action by business, public and scientific sectors and to assemble a network of experts from key business, academia and government.

It is crucial that both policymakers and Foresight professionals are involved in the definition of the objectives. The formulation of the policy objectives to be addressed by Foresight defines to a large extent the orientation of the subsequent Foresight exercise – for example, whether it is primarily driven by technology or society– and to some extent also the most appropriate methodology and techniques. It is not the role of Foresight professionals (or researchers) to set political priorities. However, they can draw out the implications of these choices for the design of the exercise. Further, researchers should also comment on whether the objectives are based on realistic expectations about what Foresight can deliver. Identifying the objectives of Foresight requires an appreciation of the policy context. To what extent is there consensus among policymakers and affected

19


stakeholders on these objectives? While it is not necessary to have complete consensus on the objectives, they need to have sufficient political support. Foresight’s objectives should be linked to a clear statement of purpose that informs people of what the exercise aims to achieve. This gives a sense of purpose to Foresight planners and participants, and also helps communicate the importance of the work to the outside world. The specificity of such mission statements will inevitably depend upon the specificity of the objectives. Some objectives are set at a general level, for example in relation to the general principles that should inform policy development. Other objectives refer to specific programmes, for example what priorities should be set in research funding.

Guidelines for identifying the objectives of the Foresight exercise:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Formulate a single-sentence mission statement to guide the formulation of objectives.

Ensures that the importance of the Foresight exercise can be communicated easily to all concerned.

Base the formulation of objectives on analysis of what is currently known about the problem(s): what is undesirable /uncertain about the present or expected future state of affairs?

Focuses the Foresight exercise on the basis of the current knowledge about the problem area.

While not losing the long-term strategic focus, link objectives to political objectives.

Helps ensure high-level political support.

Whenever appropriate, translate the objectives into measurable criteria.

Supports evaluation during and after the exercise.

Include objectives that are process and outcome related.

Foresight has a convening function (building links among stakeholders) in addition to producing tangible outcomes.

Additional consideration for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Formulate outcome objectives in relation to a particular policy area of relevance to sustainability: e.g. a particular type of pollution in a certain geographical area.

Adds focus to discussions that would otherwise remain highly conceptual without being relevant to policy development.

Take into account the activities of regional and national level actors (e.g. national research councils that fund RTD), and regional and national Foresight activities, when formulating the rationale behind a European level project.

Ensures that the added value of a European level initiative is clearly defined.

20


3.2.2 Recruit the problem owners

This aspect of the decision stage occurs simultaneously with the previous one, because a topic cannot be defined without somebody who agrees that it should be studied, and a problem owner cannot be identified unless there is a problems specified. This, for a Foresight team, is akin to marketing. It may be that the team decided a Foresight is needed for a problem and convinces a "client" to "purchase" the exercise. Or it may be that the client has already determined that there is a problem and considers Foresight as a way of gaining insights into how to manage that problem. In the normal course of events, the topic will be refined as the problem owners come to have faith that Foresight can help them.

3.2.3 Assess the feasibility of the exercise

For the time and budget available, is it possible to conduct a Foresight? Is the information that will be necessary available? For some potential exercises, this might be viewed as a "preForesight" or "miniForesight" exercise. In some parlances, it is called "feeling the bag." No matter what vocabulary one uses, this is a preliminary look at the topic in order to have the confidence that the proposed Foresight exercise will provide value for money. It is generally appropriate to introduce Foresight professionals at this aspect of the decision process, because they will have an idea of what the requirements for success will be, and are also in a position to conduct mini-Foresight exercises if that is required. At this point, it should be decided whether to undertake a large exercise or a sequence of smaller exercises.

3.2.4 Commit to the Foresight

Finally, with the topic defined, the owners on board and the feasibility checked, a commitment to invest in the Foresight exercise can be made. At this point, the scope of the Foresight (for example, one large exercise vs. an ongoing stream of smaller, more tightly focused exercises) can be determined.

3.3 Design of the exercise The design of the exercise is a process that principally answers two questions: (1) who will participate and in what roles, and (2) what methods will be used. Along the way, the original topic and objectives should remain open to modification, as more information is obtained.

3.3.1 Involve the right stakeholders

After defining the topic of the Foresight exercise, all Foresight projects map the stakeholders in the topic area selected. The involvement of all relevant stakeholders is necessary to ensure that the project’s results are valid. Further, the involvement of all stakeholders lends the exercise the legitimacy it requires to contribute to policy development. Another important reason for involving all relevant stakeholders is that this builds support for the exercise among the organisations and individuals who will be charged with implementing the findings.

21


It is well known that Foresight also has a convening function, in addition to its function of producing substantive insights into the topics considered and into future policy developments. Indeed, some of the objectives of Foresight projects are framed in relation to this function: for example, creating new linkages in the innovation system. Involving the relevant stakeholders is essential to achieving such objectives. In many Foresight exercises, it is appropriate to adopt a very broad conception of stakeholders. They may include groups from government, business and civil society. Researchers are another relevant stakeholder group. Particularly when considering a European level Foresight project, it is important to involve, or at least consult with, researchers who have addressed the same or similar topics. This avoids the danger of the possible criticism: “what’s new about this?” Such broad stakeholder involvement often means the inclusion of groups that are traditionally not consulted, which may bring new perspectives to the problems being addressed. There are systematic, formal techniques for identifying stakeholders to involve in a Foresight exercise. One such method is to adopt a variant of snowball sampling. After identifying the main groups of stakeholders to involve and a list of particular organisations and/or individuals in each group, these are invited to nominate other organisations and/or individuals. Depending on the availability of resources, these nominated organisations may then be asked to nominate other organisations/individuals to involve. This can be iterated until the nominations do not result in (or add a very small number of) new additions to the list of selected stakeholders. When employing such techniques, Foresight planners must guard against the inclusion of a narrow range of stakeholders who are traditionally involved in policymaking: of limiting the selection to “the usual suspects”. The danger of excluding stakeholders depends on the structure of the existing policy community. If it is characterised by a relatively small, tight network with good access to policymakers, which excludes a significant number of stakeholders who have an interest in the area, this danger is large. If, by contrast, the policy community is relatively open and diverse, it may be easier to identify and involve the relevant stakeholders. Identifying the right stakeholders is one thing; securing their involvement is another. The individuals and organisations identified must be given reasons to participate, reasons that are as specific as possible and relate as closely as possible to their own interests. The reasons to participate will depend on the Foresight project’s objectives and the particular stakeholders concerned. In some cases, the reasons may be fairly specific: e.g. a company may participate because it has a commercial interest in the technologies being considered. In other cases, the reasons will be more general: e.g. individuals may participate out of a sense of civic responsibility, or due to the status they obtain from taking part in a high profile public activity. Managing the interactions among a diverse set of stakeholders is a challenge. When stakeholders with very different interests and opinions in relation to a policy area are brought together in unstructured settings, this can be a recipe for polemic confrontation, rather than constructive dialogue. Furthermore, stakeholders with very different levels of technical expertise in relation to a topic may talk past each other, rather than engage with each other. The timing and

22


organisation of and fora in which different stakeholders are brought together needs to be managed carefully. Involving the right stakeholders at an early stage is crucial to identifying the specific objectives of the exercise. Defining the objectives and associated problems immediately raises the question of whose problems and objectives should be considered. Foresight projects need to identify their client stakeholders clearly. Foresight planners need to think ahead to the possible implications of the findings for outputs that lead to actions. Who might be advised to take particular actions? These actors’ problem perceptions and objectives should be considered when designing the Foresight.

Guidelines for involving the right stakeholders:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Identify a core group of stakeholders who will be the target audience.

A Foresight exercise cannot be conducted for everyone. Identifying a core group will help maintain focus while involving a larger number of stakeholders.

Use formal selection techniques to identify stakeholders of relevance to the topic. Stakeholders may be relevant because of the expertise they bring, the sections of society they represent, and/or their role in implementation.

Although formal techniques should not be applied rigidly, they ensure that the selection is systematic and transparent.

Analyse the openness and inclusiveness of the existing policy community.

This allows Foresight planners to identify and involve groups that may have a stake in the topic, but that have not been influential in terms of policymaking.

Give each stakeholder reasons to participate that are specific and relate as closely as possible to their interests.

Need to secure a commitment to participation from the stakeholders identified.

Involve different groups of stakeholders at different stages of the exercise.

Different types of knowledge may be more relevant at different stages of the Foresight exercise.

Bring stakeholders together in carefully structured settings, particularly when they hold very different views.

Avoids polemic debate in which traditional opponents take entrenched positions.

Include individuals who can form bridges between natural sciences, social sciences and policy.

Such individuals can help communication flows.

Additional considerations for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Ensure that the topic is defined narrowly enough to allow a representative group of stakeholders to be selected given

Substantial resources are required to ensure a representative selection of stakeholders in a European Foresight, even if it does not cover all of Europe.

23


the available resources. Use national and regional brokers to identify relevant stakeholders.

Knowledge of who the relevant stakeholders are is located at the national and regional levels. European umbrella organisations may find it difficult to voice the opinions of their diverse memberships.

High-level policymakers are a distinct category of stakeholders who need to be involved in a Foresight exercise; this is discussed below. Some Foresight exercises integrate the involvement of high-level policymakers with the involvement of other stakeholders. While this may be appropriate in some contexts, there are particular considerations that need to be taken into account, such that we devote attention to this group separately. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that in many cases high-level political support is necessary to motivate other stakeholders to get involved. The question arises what constitutes expertise and how to prevent an in-crowd. When you identify primary and secondary drivers, you will have to ask who knows about these drivers and those people will be called ‘experts’. This does not necessarily mean that they are experts in the sense of academics, but have a thorough understanding of the subject. In-crowd cannot be prevented by any specific method – the researchers will have to be smart about it.

3.3.2 Build political support

There must be sufficient political support for the objectives set for the Foresight exercise and for the conduct of the exercise itself. This support extends beyond the champion who originated the exercise and the problem owners who are underwriting its conduct. High-level political support is needed before the start of the project. This is necessary to ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to the Foresight exercise, and to encourage other stakeholders to participate. The importance of high-level political support is recognised explicitly in the criteria for selecting topics for consideration in the UK Foresight Programme. One of these criteria is that a government ministry should sponsor the topic. The Maltese eFORESEE pilot Foresight projects also provide examples of building political support at an early stage by selecting and framing topics that connect with issues at the top of the government’s agenda. In addition to being a prerequisite for starting a Foresight exercise, political support should also be cultivated throughout the project. Such support is usually needed for the implementation of the project’s findings, either because departments of government are advised to take particular actions, or because their authority is needed to motivate others to take actions.

24


Guidelines for building political support:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Make sure there is political support, not only from senior politicians, but also from the relevant civil servants.

Senior politicians tend to move regularly from positions. In many cases civil servants offer a more continuous source of support.

When possible, capitalise on issues currently on the political agenda, but do not lose sight of the strategic objectives of Foresight.

Showing the relevance of the Foresight exercise to current issues illustrates the importance of its broader strategic objectives.

Involve senior figures in the Foresight, but keep demands on them few and short.

Allows senior policymakers to stay informed, and if appropriate, to shape the exercise.

Additional considerations for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Ensure that the exercise has the support of all relevant DGs from the highest possible levels: in this context most relevant are likely to be Environment, Research and Transport.

Avoids disconnect across bureaucratic boundaries.

Explain the added value of European level Foresight to national policymakers.

Avoids rivalry with national Foresight exercises.

3.3.3 Allocate responsibility and resources for conducting Foresight to dedicated professionals

It is unrealistic to expect Foresight projects to succeed if people who cannot concentrate most of their efforts on this task implement them. There are a variety of organisational forms that might be used to manage Foresight projects. For the German Futur process, for instance, the Ministry of Education and Research established an independent consortium. Since Futur’s focus is directed towards funding priorities, it was considered important that those charged with implementing the Foresight exercise should be at arm’s length from the Ministry. UK Foresight uses a different approach. There is a dedicated Foresight Directorate within the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry. Whatever organisational form is used, it must have a dedicated core of experienced individuals who are charged with managing the project. The design and implementation of Foresight involves the use of a diverse set of skills. A Foresight project needs to be resourced adequately so that it can draw on these various areas of expertise. Further, the various contributions need to be integrated, so that the exercise is not a loose collection of separate work packages. Project management skills are needed to coordinate the various groups of professionals involved in Foresight projects’ design and implementation. Foresight professionals are needed to design the fora and structures through which stakeholders become involved in the project. Technical expertise is needed to identify the possible developments regarding the

25


technologies that are often the foci of Foresight. Social scientific knowledge is required to understand how individuals and groups interact with each other and these possible technological developments. Communication skills are needed to disseminate the findings to the target audiences. Foresight practitioners differ in opinion regarding the appropriate role of Foresight professionals. Foresight professionals are individuals whose expertise lies in the design and application of Foresight techniques, such as scenario building, gaming seminars and expert panels. Their expertise does not lie in the technologies that are often considered in projects. In our view, giving Foresight professionals a central role in a project’s design and implementation adds deserved credibility to it. Failure to use the services of Foresight professionals inevitably weakens the rigour of the methodology applied. Consequently, there can be little confidence in the validity of the results. Some of the Foresight professionals interviewed noted that technical expertise is required to talk credibly with the natural scientists whose knowledge must be used in many projects. This is certainly true, and the importance of technical expertise will vary depending on the topic focus selected. However, Foresight planners should guard against replacing one deficiency, a lack of technical expertise, with a far more serious one, a lack of expertise on appropriate Foresight methods. Guidelines for allocating responsibility and resources to dedicated professionals:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Select a core of experienced individuals to design and implement the Foresight project.

Foresight projects are not trivial exercises, and cannot be implemented optimally by people who are doing this part-time.

Ensure that the project team is adequately resourced to draw on the various areas of expertise required.

Foresight requires the involvement of diverse areas of knowledge and skills.

If organised in the form of a consortium, make sure the various streams of activities are well integrated.

To avoid fragmentation and the loss of synergy.

Give Foresight professionals – whose expertise lies in the development and use of Foresight techniques – a central role in the project’s design and implementation.

Ensures that the social science underpinning the exercise is sound.

Additional consideration for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Give the group charged with implementing the Foresight sufficient autonomy to be flexible and entrepreneurial.

The flexibility and entrepreneurial initiative required for Foresight -particularly for society-driven Foresight - cannot thrive in a bureaucratic environment.

26


3.3.4 Select appropriate Foresight techniques

This document offers guidelines on how to connect Foresight with policy development, rather than guidelines on Foresight techniques themselves. Nevertheless, if the project is to optimise its impact on policy, Foresight planners need to consider how the selection of techniques will affect the project’s policy impact.

The selection of techniques must be considered in the light of the project’s objectives, which are derived from the needs of policymakers in the time horizon selected for study (not necessarily their immediate concerns). The objectives of different Foresight exercises inevitably vary in their level of specificity, from providing rather abstract insights into the appropriate elements of future policy strategies to specific advice concerning the development of particular programmes, such as RTD priorities in funding programmes. Consequently, the most appropriate Foresight techniques to employ also vary. Certain techniques are associated with particular types of results, some more broad-brush and strategic, others more detailed and technical. Foresight techniques also differ in terms of the level of expertise they demand of participants. Therefore, the selection should take into consideration the type of stakeholders involved and their levels of expertise. Selecting appropriate Foresight techniques is a task for Foresight professionals. However, policymakers who give support to the Foresight and other stakeholders need to be informed of the selection. This is necessary in order to maintain realistic expectations. Dialogue between policymakers and Foresight professionals when selecting Foresight techniques can ensure that the objectives are likely to be met by the planned activities. As indicated above, Foresight practitioners differ in opinion regarding the appropriate level and type of involvement of Foresight professionals in such projects. Some are of the opinion that policymakers, rather than Foresight professionals, should be charged with the selection of techniques. We believe it is unrealistic, and potentially damaging to the credibility of the exercise, to entrust these decisions to policymakers. The Foresight techniques and procedures followed should be transparent. Transparency in procedures is a hallmark of all good science. The methodologies followed by Foresight need to be described in detail, and in an accessible fashion. Detail and accessibility are not necessarily compatible. The description of the Foresight techniques and procedures need to be available to all participants. The evaluation of the first phase of the German Futur exercise raised some concerns about the extent to which the methodology was transparent for participants, although these concerns are being addressed in subsequent phases.

27


Guidelines for selecting appropriate Foresight techniques:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Consider the Foresight project’s objectives and the expertise of the stakeholders involved when selecting techniques.

Different techniques generate different types of knowledge (in terms of their level of specificity) and make different demands on participants.

Be aware that several Foresight techniques are often needed in combination.

Foresight projects often involve different layers of objectives and a variety of stakeholders who hold different types of knowledge.

Charge Foresight professionals with the selection in dialogue with policymakers.

Ensures that the social science underpinning the exercise is sound.

Involve policymakers in the selection of techniques.

Helps keep expectations realistic.

Describe the selection of techniques, the type of insights they aim to generate and their application in accessible language.

Helps maintain support for the activities, keeps expectations realistic, and ensures that the procedures followed are transparent.

3.4 Conduct the exercise We assume here that a competent team of Foresight professionals, together with the right experts and stakeholders, will conduct an exercise of adequate quality. Here, we concentrate on three important aspects of the exercise the require vigilance, namely attention to the time frames of the project, the need to be open to disagreement as well as agreement instead of forcing a consensus, and maintaining the focus on things that require action.

3.4.1 Think in time

Foresight planners need to select a future point in time on which their activities will focus. How far into the future should this time point be? When uncertainties about future developments accumulate to such an extent that, on the basis of the current state of knowledge, policymakers are unable to take evidence-based decisions. In some cases, the appropriate time point will be relatively nearby, for instance when technological changes are taking place so rapidly that even the near future developments are uncertain. For example, the UK’s Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention Project, which considered rapidly changing emerging technologies, focussed 10-15 years into the future. By contrast, the UK’s Flood Prevention Project, which focused on environmental uncertainties, took a longer-term perspective of 30-100 years. Regardless of the time horizon selected, Foresight aims to manage these uncertainties. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce them by identifying the most likely developments or those policy actions that are robust against a variety of probable future situations. More typically, however, managing uncertainty consists of identifying the most

28


appropriate time for taking a course of action when the uncertainty about the event of a particular development has decreased.. The time horizon chosen has implications for the selection of the Foresight techniques to be used.

Whatever time horizon is chosen, Foresight projects attempt to derive insights to inform policymaking in the nearer future. When doing so, effort should be devoted to identifying what decisions need to be taken by whom and when. The identification of the appropriate timing of decisions need not focus on a particular year or date, but may instead focus on particular developments, known as signposts and triggers. Foresight may recommend a certain course of action if such a signpost or trigger is encountered. Very distant time horizons, although appropriate in some exceptional cases, bring particular challenges to linking Foresight outputs to near-future policy development. Careful thought about time should also be devoted to the design of the Foresight exercise itself. Getting the duration of the Foresight exercise right is a critical success factor in terms of feeding its results into the policy process. It must be sufficiently long to enable all stakeholders to become engaged in the process. However, it must also be sufficiently short, such that results are visible. UK Foresight projects are usually completed within a timeframe of approximately 15 months, which is considered to be challenging but long enough. Planning the timing of events or milestones in the Foresight project also offers an opportunity to connect with the policy process. When possible, key deliverables of the project should be timed so that they can feed into important policy decisions. This illustrates the relevance of longer-term strategic thinking to current policy problems. Such attention to the implementation of Foresight’s findings should be given when designing the project, as well as during the course of the exercise.

29


Guidelines for thinking in time:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Select the time horizon based on the levels of uncertainty present in the policy area. Select the time point at which uncertainties accumulate such that, with the current state of knowledge, evidence based policymaking is impossible.

Foresight aims to manage uncertainty.

When formulating policy implications, identify what decisions need to be taken when (signposts and triggers).

Connects the findings as closely as possible to policymaking.

Plan the duration of the project carefully: long enough to build momentum and achieve progress, but short enough to induce focus and a sense of urgency.

Duration needs to be tailored to the scope of the topic and context.

Deliver outputs regularly, particularly in Foresight exercises with long durations. When possible, time these to precede relevant policy decisions.

Shows evidence of progress to maintain support for the exercise. Also gives an opportunity for constructive criticism of and possible changes to the Foresight exercise itself.

Leave loose ends for others to pick up. Foresight should initiate process that continues after the project has ended.

3.4.2 Focus on disagreement as well as consensus

Definitions of Foresight sometimes include reference to its function of identifying areas of consensus. This is certainly true, but practitioners should not lose sight of the important contribution Foresight can make by increasing understanding in the face of disagreement. In other words, participants may gain a better understanding of the differences between their own and others’ views, without coming to an agreement. Indeed, some Foresight exercises are designed to reveal contentious issues that divide stakeholders who support the same more generally defined objectives. Identifying such areas of disagreement and developing understanding of them, can be an important policy contribution, since it identifies areas where joint action is impossible. This is of course particularly relevant at the European level, since European policy development requires, at the least, a threshold of support from Member States.

Some of the Foresight practitioners we interviewed suggested that the relative importance of focusing on disagreement or consensus differs among Foresight projects. These suggestions are, however, questionable. For instance, it was suggested that it is more important to focus on disagreement in early stages of the innovation cycle, where it is important to detect minority views that identify some of the uncertainties of which the majority are unaware. By contrast, when the focus is on directing policy actions, it may be more relevant to identify areas

30


of consensus on which action can be taken. This is a questionable distinction, since in order to identify areas of agreement for action Foresight must also identify areas of disagreement. If, in doing so, Foresight uncovers the reasons behind such disagreement, it offers the possibility of developing strategies to address these differences. Another suggestion was that more technology-driven Foresight projects are more inclined to focus on identifying areas of consensus while more society-driven projects focus on disagreement. It is certainly plausible that there are perhaps more objectively verifiable facts associated with the current and near-future technical possibilities, than with the ways in which these will be taken up and used by individuals. Nonetheless, identifying the areas of disagreement, even in technology-driven Foresight, is essential to identifying the uncertainties to which policymakers may need to respond. Managing the detection of disagreement appropriately is closely connected with principle 1 identified above, concerning the identification and involvement of stakeholders. While it is important to involve stakeholders with different interests and who hold different views, their involvement in the project needs to be managed carefully. When they are brought together in the same forum, the tasks they are asked to perform must be designed so that subject of their disagreement is clearly identifiable and the reasons behind their disagreement become clear. The challenge for Foresight practitioners is to detect disagreement, without structuring the exercise as a contest. This is particularly pertinent considering European RTD policy and sustainability goals, where there are very different conditions in different Member States and regions.

31


Guidelines for focusing on disagreement as well as consensus:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Gauge the amount and areas of disagreement at an early stage when selecting the stakeholders.

Foresight planners then know (or at least have expectations of) when they are introducing controversial subjects.

Postpone the most significant expected disagreements until the Foresight project is underway.

Disagreement can be seen as a strain on a Foresight project.

Identify the reasons behind the disagreements in specific areas.

This is necessary to understand why stakeholders disagree.

Ensure that the stakeholders perceive each other’s viewpoints accurately and the reasons behind their differences.

Increases understanding in the face of disagreement, and may help identify previously undetected areas where there is consensus.

Additional consideration for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Define the scope of possible disagreement by focusing on well-defined areas of relevance to sustainability: e.g. a particular type of pollution in a certain geographical area (see also the guidelines on formulating objectives).

Helps avoid debates that remain highly conceptual and polemic without being relevant to policy development.

3.4.3 Give tailored outputs that lead to action

There is and should be a distinction between Foresight and policymaking. Foresight is a tool that policymakers can use to examine current and expected future demands placed upon them, and how these may interact with new technological developments. Since Foresight projects involve a range of societal interests, they can support politicians in fulfilling their democratic role as intermediaries between societal demands and government policies. Foresight is, however, not a substitute for policymaking, and those responsible for implementing and reporting on the results of Foresight must act accordingly. This would also include dissemination after the project.

This implies that the outputs of Foresight should provide insights into the consequences of alternative courses of action in the contexts of different possible futures. The extent to which outputs are set forth in the form of recommendations for specific actors depends on the objectives set. Nonetheless, if the aim is to have an impact on policy development, the outputs need to be specific about the implications of alternative policies, taken by specified actors at specified times. The policies referred to may vary from particular policy strategies to concrete measures. The actors referred to may vary from a government as a whole to a group of societal actors to, for instance, a particular department or business. The times referred to may vary from a particular development, in the form of a signpost or trigger (e.g. if technologies are rolled out that allow individuals’ health status to be monitored remotely, governments could take

32


particular policy measures to protect citizens), to a specified period of time (e.g. within five years). Drawing out the policy implications of Foresight does not detract from its convening function, which means bringing together actors who were previously disconnected. Nonetheless, a Foresight exercise cannot be considered a success if it does not contribute to policy development. When communicating the policy implications of a Foresight project, the story behind the findings needs to be communicated in an accessible way. This means providing information on the basics of the techniques and procedures followed. This helps the target audiences understand the strength of the evidence base supporting the policy implications. Appropriate dissemination channels must be used when communicating the findings and policy implications of Foresight. It is often advisable to make use of the high-level political support cultivated throughout the project when disseminating the project’s findings. Bear in mind that targeted, oftentimes one-on-one dissemination activities may have more impact than mass campaigns. Recognise that while this stage of the process may be the end of the Foresight exercise, it is the beginning of a new phase. Indeed, the final event of the Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention project of UK Foresight was hosted by a Cabinet Minister and was referred to as an “inauguration”.

Guidelines for giving tailored outputs that lead to action:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Specify the consequences of alternative policies under different possible futures.

This is the primary function of Foresight.

When discussing policies, identify options in terms of which actors could take actions and when they could act.

General statements that something should be done are unlikely to have an impact.

Tell the story behind the findings. A basic insight into the Foresight techniques used is necessary to understand the value of the findings.

Use the support of the stakeholders involved, including those who will be charged with implementing some of the policies considered, as well as high-level policymakers.

These have the authority to get the findings noticed.

Tailor the outputs and dissemination strategies to the target audiences.

Connects with the interests and needs of the target audiences.

33


3.5 Obtain feedback Foresight exercises should include provisions for an evaluation of their project with a view to optimising the impact of Foresight projects on policy. Evaluation can optimise the policy impact of Foresight in two respects. First, if carried out during the Foresight exercise, evaluations may lead to changes that will increase the project’s contribution to policy development. Second, whether carried out during or after the project, evaluation adds to the credibility of the Foresight process by increasing transparency. If evaluation brings the approval of external Foresight professionals of the scientific quality of the process, this adds authority to the project’s findings. Given the distinct benefits of evaluation during and after the project’s completion, it is advisable to conduct both types of evaluation if resources permit. Ex post evaluation of Foresight presents unique challenges for evaluation researchers. Foresight typically aims to have an impact over long time periods. It may therefore be difficult or impossible to make conclusions about a recently completed project’s impact on policy development. Nevertheless, previous evaluations of Foresight exercises, such as the evaluation of the Hungarian Technology Programme, were able to identify specific policy decisions that were informed by the findings of Foresight. Moreover, evaluation of Foresight should be comprehensive, in the sense that they focus on all aspects of the project that relate to its quality and potential impact on policy development. This includes not only the use and impact of the outputs by policymakers, but also the scientific quality of the Foresight process, its effects on the structures of networks among participating stakeholders, and the quality and quantity of the outputs. There is a variety of models for organising the evaluation of Foresight. Some exercises suffice with feedback from participants and monitoring of quality and impact by the team responsible for conducting the exercise. Other, typically larger, Foresight projects bring in a panel of internationally recognised Foresight experts. International panels lend more prestige and authority to the evaluation. They may, however, not be able to grasp the full complexity of the context in which the Foresight exercise is implemented in the relatively short time periods in which they must typically conduct their evaluations.

34


Guidelines for evaluating Foresight:

Guidelines for all Foresight exercises What to do Why do it Start planning for evaluation when planning the Foresight project.

Data need to be collected systematically throughout the project to facilitate evaluation.

Make provisions for evaluation both during and after the Foresight project.

These two types of evaluation help optimise policy impact in different ways.

Evaluate against the project’s objectives and ensure that the evaluation considers:

• The scientific quality of the Foresight process

• The effects on the structures of networks among participating stakeholders

• The quantity and quality of the outputs

• The use and impact of the outputs

This covers the breadth of objectives, including Foresight’s convening and output-related functions. It also ensures that evaluations are not limited to the impact of the outputs on policy, which is most difficult to prove conclusively.

Ensure that those charged with evaluating the project are authoritative and independent, and are also adequately resourced to gain knowledge of the context in which Foresight is implemented.

Avoids the trade-off between impartiality and in-depth knowledge of the context. Knowledge about the contextual factors is necessary to identify the reasons behind the project’s successes and failures.

Additional consideration for European Foresight on sustainability and RTD Engage and adequately resource an independent panel of international experts to conduct the evaluation.

A necessary measure to guarantee to quality and credibility of the evaluation.

35


4. Discussion and conclusions

The roadmap presented in the previous chapter may be used as a guideline for the conduct of Foresight exercises at the regional, national, or supranational level. Here, we discuss the practical issues that arise when Foresight is contemplated at the European level and the associated topic of what should be particularly "European" about a European Foresight. These aspects are based on the discussions during the culmination session of the project.

4.1 Practical issues for European Foresight Decision to conduct and design of the exercise

Foresight activities are tools for decision makers to take better-informed decisions. This goes beyond the area of science and technology – it can change the frame of mind of any decision maker. In the end, however, decision makers decide whether they want to use the outcome or not.

The Foresight specialists have to be pro-active and outgoing. They need to consult different departments and convince them of the use of Foresight. This may be easier in some departments, such as the environmental departments (e.g., in Denmark) that are willing to use innovative methods. However, different sectors have different cultures; looking at a Foresight in sustainable transport, acceptability of Foresight may be harder to achieve, as transport departments seem to be less focused on innovation. On the other hand, policymakers are interested in evidence-based policy – whether this includes using Foresight depends on whether there is a Foresight culture. Furthermore, one should realize that policy processes are not always rational – some Foresights have taken place because other countries also did them. Some Foresight studies are actually not Foresight studies when looking at the three requirements: alternative futures, participatory process, and action-oriented. The input of other directorates general (DGs) is required for a European Foresight. DG Research can animate the scene, but needs other DGs to adopt the idea as well; this is difficult as DGs can be competitive. The competition between governmental departments is also an issue in the UK and Germany – separate departments will do their own thing or refuse to be involved in other departments’ activities. Following the UK example, DG Research could aim to become a centre of expertise that helps other DGs move along. One could argue to include the implementers as part of the whole process. In principle this would be appropriate, although a more flexible input would increase effectiveness and efficiency of the whole exercise while at the same time limiting the possibility of them disturbing the process: they could be introduced in the Foresight process when they are needed – it may open new options but at the same time limit the creative process. Conduct the exercise

A Foresight needs to have an implementation plan; a mere vision will not contribute to any effects. The UK experience started with panels that included

36


policy makers in 1994, implicitly making the link to decision-making. However, there was no further implementation. Based on the lessons learned, current exercises include action plans at the end of a session, where the participants explain what they are going to do as a result of the Foresight. This is an essential step for making the link to policy changes.

Care should be taken to confuse an action plan for an implementation plan, especially when other governmental agencies need to be triggered to undertake action – they may be reluctant to join in. Therefore, a Foresight should be part of policy activities already taking place – if it is only done as a ‘side-thing’ recommendations will not be implemented – the Foresight needs to be embedded in policy processes. Of course, the scope of a Foresight may be limited by political realities: one can suggest measures that will not be implemented – the UK Foresight on addictions suggested that alcohol is more detrimental to society than cannabis, but legalizing cannabis would not be a feasible action. Broad participation is important in such situations: it gives credibility to the process. If decisions aren’t made, it does not mean that the conclusions are wrong. Feedback

It is difficult to determine beforehand the indicators for the final quality of the outcome of the Foresight exercise: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Indication so impact could be very soft: when stakeholders ‘start to scream’, it often shows that the Foresight has had some effect. The ERA-NET ForSociety has a list of 25 indicators that could indicate success. Other more solid indicators could be the number of articles in journals or newspapers, as well as the quality of the newspaper the article was published in. A year later there could be a review of the impact: how many people have heard of the Foresight study? As an example, the UK Foresight has its process reviewed by an external organization.

Overall, a post-Foresight process to investigate effects should be foreseen in establishing the Foresight exercise

4.2 The European dimension in Foresight Decide whether or not to do the exercise

A European Foresight would be useful in determining general trends based on a common shared vision and the implications such trends have for specific geographic areas (e.g. developments in food industry that are similar in a number of member states). A European Foresight incorporates the extra dimension of political consensus. It has a lot of groups that are less well connected to the European level, but moreover to the national level, that come together.

The EC needs Foresight at the European level to improve the science/policy relationship. This requires a more policy rather than research/technical orientation. There should be implicit or explicit consensus on the importance of defining objectives, which requires making trade-offs (e.g. socio-economic vs. environmental impact). The European dimension can have different meanings: it could refer to a European problem (e.g. EC agriculture policy) or to a national problem that has

37


European elements. Depending on the focus, different methodologies are appropriate and should be developed and applied. The selection of the focus should be stressed in the first stage of the roadmap: national, transnational (e.g. a problem with combined value chains in Germany, France and The Netherlands) or European. Design the exercise

The roadmap will have to be differently implemented dependent on whether the focus is on a European, transnational or national problem. Stakeholder involvement and implementation will be more difficult at the European level than at the regional/national level. As implementation is already difficult at the national level it will be even more at the European level because of thousands of stakeholder consultations. A major risk would be that Foresight exercises at the European level are going to be oversized and will not follow the whole cycle through.

As has been presented in Figure 1.2, Foresight may have instrumental and informative dimensions. When linking Foresight to policymaking, it is likely that the outcomes have an instrumental dimension making it almost impossible to achieve outcomes with a more informative perspective. However, the more a European Foresight has a political load, the larger the problem of stakeholder involvement becomes. Therefore, it would be more likely for a European Foresight with an informative dimension to succeed. Foresight can be conducted on a European level to put things on the agenda, but implementation might be more effective on national/regional level. Avoid encroaching on a national level. Conduct the exercise

A European Foresight with stakeholders from different countries could have the following complications, which becomes more pronounced when involving more stakeholders from more member states:

! consensus vs. conflict culture

! implementation of Foresight requires consensus to some extent (balance conflicts); an informative Foresight does not require full consensus to develop divergent scenario’s

! cultural differences in scenario interpretation (e.g. Germany vs. Japan on robotics)

Out of the box thinking should be stimulated and the process should be creative and not too formally academic (e.g. citizen conference on brain science resulted in a consensus paper with around 20 ideas). Feedback

A European Foresight should not try to reach one common vision but should adaptation to differing circumstances. EC policy makers need understanding of why stakeholders might oppose to EC policy objectives. Therefore, a European Foresight is a continuous challenge for the EC. One of the main problems could be the dialogue and new idea generation after the exercise.

38


4.3 Overall conclusions In this final section, we express some conclusions that we derive from the roadmap and considerations of the European and practical dimensions of Foresight. These conclusions are intended to be advisory in the sense that they provide what we hope is valuable thinking for people who might contemplate a Foresight exercise or who might be approached by someone who believes that they should so contemplate. It is a distillation of what we have learned from the study and, as such, is our interpretation of what we have found. Yes we can. The principal conclusion from this project is that it is both possible and useful to conduct Foresight studies at the level of the European Union. However, such studies are more restricted than the full range of uses to which Foresight has been put; while Foresight exercises at the regional or even national levels can be more instrumental in nature and have technological rather than societal orientations, or can be highly directed towards investment planning, European Foresight must be more informative in nature, focussing on influencing policy thinking rather than policy making. That said, there are barriers that any European Foresight exercise must overcome. First amongst these is that the differences in culture within Europe will add to the complexity of any Foresight exercise. Consensus and cooperation that might be easier within a single Member State may prove more difficult at the European level. While in any Foresight exercise, it is crucial to attend to disagreements as well as agreements, this takes on added importance in European-level Foresight. Creativity is needed in discovering ways to frame objectives that synthesise different points of view; compromise instead of synthesis can have a habit of coming back to haunt policy thinking when it comes time to implement policy. Maintain Foresight at multiple levels. A European Foresight is no substitute for a national or a regional Foresight exercise. Different studies have different foci, and to attempt to use a Foresight at a level for which it was not intended runs the possibility of being counterproductive. That said, any Foresight exercise needs to be cognisant of multiple levels; just as a European-level Foresight must attend to cultural and national differences, so a national or regional Foresight must attend to Europe-wide considerations. The commitment of the European Union means that internal competition must be managed so that in the run, the society as a whole benefits. Do not try this alone at home. Foresight, to be done correctly, requires planning and professionalism. The methods of Foresight are sophisticated enough so that just reading a textbook and then doing one is likely to be a poor investment. Fortunately, there is an emerging cadre of Foresight practitioners who are available to assist people at all levels. While these practitioners might like to have the luxury that policy makers come to ask them for help, sometimes it is the Foresight practitioners who must do the marketing. This means that both sides need to be open and attentive to each other.

39


Foresight must not be purely academic. A clear message from our case studies and culmination session is that the measure of the utility of a Foresight exercise is what happens after the exercise. If everything goes methodologically according to plan and the participants enjoy themselves, but nothing happens, then the exercise cannot be regarded as a success. Because implementation is so critical, post-exercise planning must be part of the original design of the exercise, its conduct, and its evaluation. In choosing participants, it is critical to have some representation of the people who will be responsible for making things happen later. If, during the exercise, they sound warning signals, such signals should be attended to. However, having implementers present is not just for overcoming barriers. Implementers who understand the Foresight process because they have participated and feel that they have voice in the conclusions can facilitate making the endeavour go forward. Implementation takes time and requires organisational change; this is not something to be underestimated. Foresight is rarely one-off. In our discussions with the people who have been recognised for doing "best practice" Foresight, the notion that Foresight is more of an ongoing process than a discrete event came up. Whilst an exercise is discrete in the sense that it must take place within a fixed time, space and budget, it is extensible in the sense that multiple exercises can be planned in sequence (or in parallel), and that Foresight definitely builds upon itself, learning from what worked and what didn't work both in terms of substance and method. One implication of this is that it is important to compile a record of Foresight exercises—what they originally were intended to do, how they were conducted, and what happened as a result of the exercise. Another implication is that one conclusion from any Foresight exercise must be the planning for the next exercise. In this way, a useful tradition for proactive planning based on experience and evidence can facilitate growth of the European economy and the creation of societal benefit.

40


Appendix A: Key informants consulted

This appendix identifies the key informants who were consulted for in-depth review of Foresight exercises and of the principles and guidelines developed. These individuals were consulted with a view to sharpening the focus and outcomes of the project on the issues most relevant to optimising the policy contribution of Foresight. The interviewees were selected on the basis of a discussion within the RAND team, which identified individuals who are known to be knowledgeable about linking Foresight to policy, and based on suggestions by Commission staff at DG Research.

The selection was made so that it included individuals who could speak from the perspective of policymakers (including senior civil servants), scientists specialised in the technologies being examined, and producers of and consumers of the goods and services affected by the technologies considered. We used two methods to solicit external contributions: interviews and a workshop (culmination session). Interviews

The interviews were semi-structured, so as to allow the informants to identify what they believe to be the most pertinent issues. The interview began with the interviewer describing the aims of the project: to formulate practical guidelines to optimise the policy contributions of Foresight, and to apply these guidelines to a European Foresight exercise focusing on European RTD policy that considers the goals of sustainable development. The interviewees were then asked to respond to the following four questions, bearing in mind the focus of our project:

1. What types of contribution can Foresight make with respect to policy development?

2. Which stakeholders should be involved in Foresight and why? For each stakeholder group identified, describe what the nature of their involvement should be.

3. If success is defined as making a contribution to policy development, what are the barriers to conducting successful Foresight exercises? What are the critical success factors?

4. What guidelines would you recommend for establishing a European Foresight exercise with the aim of integrating sustainability goals into European RTD policy? Which of these are specific to the goals of this exercise and which would apply to most Foresight exercises?

The interviews, most of which were held by telephone, lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The following individuals were interviewed in relation to the formulation of the principles for Foresight and the guidelines for implementing them.

41


Key informants consulted when preparing this report:

Last Name Institution

Banthien Henning IFOK Institute, Germany Bhattachary Darren The Royal Society, UK Bovenschulte Marc VDI, Germany Burgelman Jean-Claude JRC-IPTS, Spain Cassingena Harper

Jennifer Malta Council for Science and Technology, Malta

Cuhls Kerstin ISI, Fraunhofer, Germany Georghiou Luke PREST, Manchester Business School,

University of Manchester, UK

Havas Attila Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

Hjelt Mari Gaia Group, Finland Jackson Andrew Foresight Programme, Office of

Science and Technology, United Kingdom

Klusacek Karel Technology Centre, Czech Republic Kovats Ferenc Hungarian Ministry of Education Mansell Robin London School of Economics Miles Ian PREST, Manchester Business School,

University of Manchester, UK Rader Michael ITAS, Germany Sarocco Roberto T Lab, Italy Schoof Ad Ministry of Economic Affairs, The

Netherlands Stuij Bert SenterNovem, The Netherlands Wagner Caroline The RAND Corporation, Washington

DC, USA Walker Warren Delft University of Technology and

RAND Europe, the RAND Corporation, the Netherlands

Weber Matthias ARC Systems, Austria Yarrington Miles Foresight Programme, Office of

Science and Technology, United Kingdom

Culmination session

The culmination session was held with a view to:

• Validating the set of recommendations on the conduct of Foresight;

• Where necessary, refining the set of recommendations; and

• Demonstrating support for the recommendations.

Based on the formulation of a set of practical guidelines for planning Foresight exercises, we sketched out a Foresight exercise in the area of transport that contributes to European Research and Technology Development (RTD) policy, while considering the goals of sustainable development. The culmination session

42


was intended to use that sketch to refine these guidelines where necessary and to explore their application to the abovementioned European Foresight exercise. The primary target audiences of the workshop were experts at the regional, national and European levels in the areas of Foresight methods, RTD policymaking and sustainability and transport. Foresight Culmination session participants list:

Last name First name Institute

Caracostas Paraskevas EC DG Research

Christoforides Nikolaos EC DG Research

Cunion Karl Office of Science and Technology

Dratwa Jim EC DG Research

Frinking Erik RAND Europe

Grol, van Rik RAND Europe

Gudmundsson Henrik National Environmental Research Institute

Hafner-Zimmerman Sabine Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum

Havas Attila Institute of Economics

Hjelt Mari Gaia Group

Kahan Jim RAND Europe

Ligtvoet Andreas RAND Europe

Mathijssen Judith RAND Europe

Mayer-Ries Joerg IFOK Institute

Poireau Michel EC DG Research

Rijswijk, van Merlijn Ministry of Economic Affairs

Schomberg, von Rene EC DG Research

Sueptitz Gabriele EC DG Research

Thomson Robert Utrecht University

Virdis Maria Rosa EC DG Research

Wobbe Werner EC DG Research

43


Appendix B: Project bibliography

This appendix contains the project bibliography. It contains references to work that have informed our thinking about Foresight and future studies, and how these feed into the policy process.

Armstrong JS. 1985. Long-Range Forecasting, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Azar, Christian, John Holmberg, and Sten Karlsson, 2002. Decoupling— Past Trends and Prospects for the Future, Stockholm, Sweden: Environmental Advisory Council, Ministry of the Environment.

Bain, David H. 1993. Empire Express: Building the First Transcontinental Railroad, New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Bankes, Steven C. 2002a “Agent-Based Modeling: A Revolution?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 99, Supplement 3, pp. 7199–7200.

Bankes, Steven C. 2002b.“Tools and Techniques for Developing Policies for Complex and Uncertain Systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 99, Supplement 3, pp. 7263–7266.

Bankes, Steven C., “Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis,” Operations Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 435–449.

Ben-Haim, Yakov. 2001. Information-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty, Burlington, Mass.: Academic Press, 2001.

Bright JR, Schoeman MEF. 1973. A Guide To Practical Technological Forecasting, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Eine erste Bilanz. Futur: Der deutsche Forschungsdialog. BMBD, May, 2003.

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Heute schon das Morgen denken: Futur-Kongress am 8. Juni 2004 in Berlin. BMBD, 2004.

Coates JF, Mahaffie JB, Hines A. 1994. Technological forecasting: 1970–1993. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 47: 23–33.

Coates JF. 1985. Foresight in federal government policymaking. Futures Research Quarterly Summer: 29–53.

Coates V, Farooque M, Klavans R, Lapid K, Linstone HA, Pistorius C, Porter AL. 2001. On the future of technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67: 1–17.

Cuhls K, Blind K, Grupp H (eds). 1998. Delphi ’98—Neue Chancen durch strategische Vorausschau. [Delphi ’98—New opportunities through strategic Foresight], Tagungsband der Tagung in der Deutschen Bibliothek in Frankfurt/Main am 1: Karlsruhe.

Cuhls K, Blind K, Grupp H. 2002. Innovations for our Future. Physica Publishers: Heidelberg.

44


Cuhls K. 2002. Futur—Foresight for Priority-setting in Germany, Bowonder (ed.): Special Issue on Foresight. International Journal of Techn. Management.

Cuhls, Kerstin. Development and Perspectives of Foresight in Germany. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis. Nr. 2, 12. Jg. June, 2003.

Cuhls, Kerstin. From Forecasting to Foresight Processes – New Participative Foresight Activities in Germany. Journal of Forecasting. 22, 93-111, 2003.

Cuhls, Kerstin. Government Foresight Activities in Germany: The Futur Process. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Technology Foresight. Tokyo, 27-28 Feb, 2003.

Dalkey, N. C., and O. Helmer-Hirschberg. 1962. An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, RM-727-PR.

Dawes, Robyn M., 1998. The Information Age and the Printing Press: Looking Backward to See Ahead, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, P8014.

De Cooman, G., T. L. Fine, and T. Seidenfeld, 2001. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.

Dewar, James A., 2001, Assumption-Based Planning: A Tool for Reducing Avoidable Surprises, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dewar, James A., Carl H. Builder, William M. Hix, and Morlie H. Levin. 1993. Assumption-Based Planning: A Tool for Very Uncertain Times, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, MR-114-A.

Dewar, James A., Steven C. Bankes, Sean J. A. Edwards, and James C. Wendt. 2000. Expandability of the 21st Century Army, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, MR-1190-A.

Dietz, Volkmar. There’s a Future for FUTUR: The FUTUR Process and Its Results. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis. Nr. 2, 12. Jg. June, 2003.

Easterbrook, Gregg 1995. A Moment on the Earth: The Coming of Age of Environmental Optimism, Viking Press.

European Commission. 1999. Forward Planning in Education in the Member States of the EU, EURYDICE Report, Brussels.

Fink A, Schlake O, Siebe A. 2001. Erfolg durch Szenario-Management. Prinzip und Werkzeuge der strategischen Vorausschau [Success through Scenario Management. Principles and Instruments of Strategic Foresight]. Campus: Frankfurt/ New York.

Fonkych, Kateryna. 2001. Modeling for Long-Term Policy Analysis: The Case of World3 Model, RAND Graduate School: 15.

Forrester, Jay W. 1994. “Learning Through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21st Century, Systems Thinking and Dynamic Modeling for K–12 Education,” Concord Academy.

Gallopin, Gilberto, Al Hammond, Paul Raskin, and Rob Swart. 1997. Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environmental Institute.

45


Georghiou, Luke. Evaluating Foresight and Lessons for Its Future Impact. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Technology Foresight. Tokyo, 27-28 Feb, 2003.

Godet M. 1997. Scenarios and Strategies. A Toolbox for Problem Solving. Cahiers du LIPS, Special Issue: Paris.

Gordon, T. J., and Olaf Helmer. 1964. Report on a Long-Range Forecasting Study, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, P-2982.

Havas A. 2003. Evolving Foresight in a small country in transition. Journal of Forecasting 22(2–3): 179–201.

Helmer O. 1967. Analysis of the Future: The Delphi method. Rand Corporation: Santa Monica.

Hughes, Barry B. 1999. International Futures: Choices in the Face of Uncertainty(Dilemmas in World Politics), third edition, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Irvine J, Martin BR. 1984. Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners. Dover: London.

Jantsch E. 1967. Technological Forecasting in Perspective. OECD: Paris.

Jungk R, Mullert N. 1996. Future Workshops. How to Create Desirable Futures. Institute for Social Inventions: London.

Kahn, Herman, William Brown, and Leon Martel. 1976. The Next 200 Years—A Scenario for America and the World, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc..

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1982. The Simulation Heuristic, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kono T. 1992. Long-Range Planning of Japanese Corporations. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin/ New York.

Kuhlmann S, et al. 1999. Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science & Technology Policy Planning Network (ASTPP), ISI: Karlsruhe.

Lempert, Robert J., and James Bonomo. 1998. New Methods for Robust Scienceand Technology Planning, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, DB-238-DARPA.

Lempert, Robert J., and Michael E. Schlesinger, 2000. ”Robust Strategies for Abating Climate Change,” Climate Change, Vol. 45, Nos. 3/4, pp. 387–401.

Lempert, Robert J., and Michael E. Schlesinger, 2002. Adaptive Strategies for Climate Change. Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization, R. Watts, ed., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lempert, Robert J., Michael E. Schlesinger, Steven C. Bankes, and Natalie G. Andronova, 2000. “The Impact of Variability on Near-Term Climate-Change Policy Choices,” Climate Change, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 129–161.

46


Lempert, Robert J., S. Popper, and S. C. Bankes 2003. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Terms Policy Analysis. The RAND Corporation.

Lempert, Robert J., Steven W. Popper, and Steven C. Bankes. 2002. “Confronting Surprise,” Social Science Computing Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 420–440.

Lempert, Robert. J. 2002. Transition Paths to a New Era of Green Industry: Technological and Policy Implications, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, P-8067.

Linstone HA, Simmonds WHC (eds). 1977. Futures Research: New Directions. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Linstone HA. 2002. Corporate planning, forecasting, and the long wave. Futures 34: 317–336.

Maier K. 2001. Citizen participation in planning: climbing a ladder? European Planning Studies 9: No. 6, 707–719.

Martin BR, Johnston R. 1999. Technology Foresight for wiring up the national innovation system. Experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Special Issue onNational Foresight Projects 60, Grupp H (ed.). Elsevier Science: New York; 37–54.

Martin BR. 1995a. Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 7: No. 2, 139–168.

Martin BR. 1995b. Technology Foresight 6: A Review of Recent Overseas Programmes. HMSO: London.

Martin BR. 1996. Foresight. In STI Review No. 17, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (ed.). Special Issue on Government Technology Foresight Exercises, Paris; 140.

Martin, Ben R., and John Irvine, 1989. Research Foresight, London: Pinter Publishers.

Martino JP. 1983. Technological Forecasting for Decision Making, 2nd edn. North-Holland: New York, Amsterdam, Oxford.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers, 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future, White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing Co..

Morgan, M. G., Milind Kandlikar, James Risebey, and Hadi Dowlatabadi, 1999. “Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change,” Climatic Change, Vol. 41, 1999, pp. 271–281.

Morgan, Millett G., and Max Henrion, eds., 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, Norman, Nancy J. Myers, and Julian Simon, 1994. Scarcity or Abundance?:A Debate on the Environment, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Nakicenovic, N., 1999. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

47


National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) and Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, 1994. Outlook for Japanese and German Future Technology, NISTEP Report No. 33, April 1994.

Nedeva M, Georghiou L, Loveridge D, Cameron H. 1996. The use of co-nomination to identify expert participants for Technology Foresight. R&D Management 26: No. 2, 155–168.

Newell, Richard, and William Pizer, 2001. Discounting the Benefits of Future Climate Change Mitigation: How Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase Valuations? Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Parke HW. 1956. The Delphic Oracle. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Payne, John. W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson, 1993. The Adaptive Decision-Maker, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Popper, Steven W., Caroline Wagner, and Robert Lempert, 2002. “Moving Beyond Foresight,” Foresight-Scenarios-Landscaping Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, July 5, 2002.

Raskin, Paul, Gilberto Gallopin, Pablo Gutman, Al Hammond, and Rob Swart, 1998. Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Raskin, Paul, Tariq Banuri, Gilberto Gallopin, Pablo Gutman, Al Hammond, Robert Kates, and Rob Swart, 2002. Great Transition—The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Ringland G. 1998. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. John Wiley: Chichester.

Rosenhead, M. J., 1989. “Robustness Analysis: Keeping Your Options Open,” in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and Conflict, New York: Wiley and Sons.

Sackman H. 1975. Delphi Critique. Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process. Rand Corporation.

Schwartz, Peter, 1996. Art of the Long View, New York: Doubleday.

Scott G. 2001. Strategic planning for high-tech product development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 3: 343–364.

Van der Heijden K. 1997. Scenarios. The Art of Strategic Conversation. John Wiley: Chichester.

Van der Meulen B, De Wilt J, Rutten J. 2003. Developing a future for agriculture in the Netherlands. Journal of Forecasting (in press).

Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. “Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 36, pp. 201–208.

Wright G, Goodwin P (eds). 1998. Forecasting with Judgment. John Wiley: Chichester.

48


Appendix C: Foresight exercises scanned

In our initial proposal, we envisaged that the Foresight exercises selected should be balanced along the different Foresight typologies discussed above (see Figure 1.2), some Foresight exercises being more driven by societal factors than technologies, and some exercises being more instrumental than informative. On reflection, however, the recent Foresight projects and programmes that are most relevant for the purposes of this project tend to be driven primarily by societal factors and to be applied instrumentally. Given the available resources, we selected the following Foresight projects:

• The Dutch Transition Approach to Sustainable Development

• German Futur project

• Hungarian Technology Foresight

• The FISTERA project

• UK Foresight programme, in particular the five projects that have been conducted (or are underway) in the third phase

• (And to a more limited extent) the Maltese eForesee project.

This appendix provides a brief overview of some of these projects, paying particular attention to the features of these projects that are pertinent to the formulation of practical guidelines for conducting Foresight with a view to having a policy impact. C.1 Futur - The German Research Dialogue

The German Research Dialogue Futur was launched in the summer of 2001 by Edelgard Bulmahn, the Minister of Education and Research. This is an ongoing Foresight exercise that will continue at least until the end of 2006. Its aim is to identify future priorities for research funding, focusing on the year 2020. The Futur process is a Foresight exercise driven by societal demands, not by specific technologies. This is clearly reflected in the design of the process.

The Ministry of Education has charged a consortium of five institutes and companies with the implementation of Futur:

• Institut für Organisationskommunikation (IFOK) is the consortium leader, a company specialized in managing complex communication processes.

• Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innvationsforschung (ISI) provides expertise in the conduct of Foresight exercises. ISI’s expertise also lies in identifying the socioeconomic implications of scientific and technological developments.

• Institut für Zukunftstudien und Technologiebewertung (IZT) provides expertise in scenario development.

• Pixelpark manages the Internet and virtual platform for Futur.

• VDI/VDE-Technologiezentrum Informationstechnik (VDI/VDE-IT) provides Futur with technological expertise.

49


The partners of the consortium provide a complementary set of expertise for the elaboration and implementation of the project. The Futur process has been carefully planned in a number of discrete stages. The first phase of the Future process culminated in the presentation of four “lead visions” in the summer of 2002, a year after the start of the project. The lead visions focus on the following areas:

• Understanding thought processes;

• Creating open access to tomorrow’s world of learning;

• Healthy and vital throughout life by prevention; and

• Living in a networked world: individual and secure.

Each of the lead visions includes a description of the aim of the vision, the significance of the topic, its implications from future research priorities and the present state of research and current research support priorities. The Ministry of Education has set up a fund, currently set at Euro 10 million, for the implementation of these visions in research projects. Figure C.1. The Futur process

Source: http://www.futur.de/en/6370.htm

50


The development and implementation of the first phase of Futur illustrates how a large number of participants, including policymakers, can be involved in Foresight. More than 1,500 participants were involved in the first phase of Futur. The process began in the summer of 2001 with the collection of topics and trends in a session with approximately 400 experts. The groups of topic identified there formed the basis of the first Futur Conference in September 2001. At that conference, cross-disciplinary working groups narrowed down the list of possible topics. Between November 2001 and February 2002, more in-depth focus groups and workshops were held to examine these topics. The Ministry of Education and Research then approved the first Futur lead visions. Teams from the Ministry of Education and Research then developed support measures derived from the lead visions. The selection of expert participants covered a broad range of disciplines and parts of society. For example, 45% of participants were from the scientific community, including mathematics, IT, natural sciences, medicine, psychology, economics, law, and other humanities and social sciences. 22% of participants were from industry, including manufacturing, services, chemical, pharmaceutical, and IT companies. 21% of participants were from other societal groups, including education, politics, environmental organisations, and church groups. Other participants included those not affiliated with a particular collective organisation. The participants were also mixed in terms of gender and age. A snowball sampling method was used for the selection, whereby the initial participants were asked to nominate other participants. An international panel of experts on Foresight conducted an evaluation of the first phase (an evaluation of the second phase has been completed, but is yet to be published). The conclusions of the evaluation were positive, such that the Ministry of Education and Research decided to continue the exercise. Nevertheless, some critical remarks were also made. “A key finding was that the participants felt disconnected from the implementation process and to a lesser extent the programme managers responsible for implementation lacked a sense of ownership of Futur.”3 A survey among Futur participants revealed that “for some, decision-making in the process was not entirely comprehensible”.4 In addition, it was noted that the results of Futur lack originality.5 This is perhaps unsurprising given that Futur focuses on large trends that will determine the future shape of society. The results of this evaluation have been taken into account in the subsequent stages of the Futur process. The second phase of Futur began in 2003 when the consortium recommended a number of new topics based on the work conducted at the start of the exercise. A new selection of topics for new lead visions was made in the winter of 2003 by the Ministry of Education and Research. Lead visions in the following areas should be ready in the winter of 2004: the bionic house, needs-specific consumer products, and healthy nutrition. Meanwhile, the

3 Georghiou, Luke. Evaluating Foresight and Lessons for Its Future Impact. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Technology Foresight. Tokyo, 27-28 Feb, 2003. Pp. 8. 4 Dietz, Volkmar. There’s a Future for FUTUR: The FUTUR Process and Its Results. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis. Nr. 2, 12. Jg. June, 2003, Pp. 30. 5 Ibid.

51


third phase of Futur began in 2004, with the selection of new topics and a conference.

C.2 UK Foresight Programme

The UK Foresight Programme is housed within the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry.6 The programme aims “to increase UK exploitation of science”. It does so either by identifying new societal or economic opportunities presented by scientific and technological development, or by addressing how future societal challenges might be addressed by scientific and technological developments. As such, this programme considers both “technological push” and “societal demand pull” factors.

The programme has been in operation since 1994. Although its aim has remained broadly the same, it has undergone substantial changes in form.

• The first round of Foresight was held between 1994 and 1999. Fifteen sector facing panels were created, bringing together experts from industry, government and academia. These included panels on Chemicals, Construction, IT, Electronics and Communications, Retail and Distribution. These panels considered emerging market and technological opportunities in the next 20 years, and the implications for research and other actions. The panels consulted some 10,000 people before publishing their first findings in 1995. The reports aimed to identify the likely social, economic and market trends in each sector, and the developments in science, engineering, technology and infrastructure required to address future need.

• The second round of Foresight was held in the period 1999-2002. This was also organised by a set of panels, some of which had a similar sector focus as in the first round. This round moved beyond the technology focus of the first round to examine the opportunities presented by the interaction of scientific and technological developments and social and market trends.

• The current phase of Foresight has been in operation since 2002, following a review of the Foresight Programme in 2000. The main findings of the review were that the programme should refocus on science and technology, be more flexible in taking into account emerging developments, and target resources more clearly to where they would add most value. As a result the UK Foresight Programme moved away from a structure of standing panels covering broad sectors. A new, rolling programme of projects was established.

The current phase of UK Foresight involves three or four projects running in parallel. Before selecting these topics, wide consultations are held with business, the science base, and other government bodies. The criteria for selecting topics include the presence of:

• Significant current scientific developments that have the potential to bring radical change;

6 This text is adapted from material found at http://www.Foresight.gov.uk/ and the authors’ knowledge of the UK Foresight Programme through personal contacts. RAND Europe worked on a recent UK Foresight project on Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention, and is currently involved in work for the new Horizon Scanning Centre of Excellence.

52


• Important social and/or economic challenges that science and technology may help resolve;

• Opportunity to bring together a group of expert people with an interest in exploring the topic;

• At least one sponsor from one of the interested communities (government, research funders, business etc) who agrees that the project should be conducted and who has the power to make things happen after the Foresight project has been completed;

• A willingness on the part of at least one of the interested communities to commit resources; and

• A potential added value to existing activities and initiatives.

The following four projects have completed their research: Cognitive Systems, Flood and Costal Defence, Exploiting the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention. The current Foresight projects are 1) Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs, 2) The Detection and Identification of Infectious Diseases, and 3) Intelligent Infrastructure Systems. Each project is led at a senior level by either the Chief Scientific Officer, the Director General of the Research Councils or the Director General of the DTI’s Innovation Group. The projects are implemented by dedicated in-house teams, civil servants employed by or seconded to UK Foresight. Foresight projects typically involve the engagement of a large number of stakeholders. Depending on the topic and the type of stakeholder, different ways of engaging their interest are used. For instance, the projects make use of a structure consisting of an Advisory Panel and a Stakeholder Panel, as well as workshops, seminars and presentations to which other stakeholders are invited. There is a strong emphasis on the production of outputs. These include:

• State of the art reviews of science in accessible forms;

• Visions of the future, informed by an understanding of the key drivers;

• Actionable recommendations, owned by those capable of implementing them; and

• Enduring networks to continue dialogue as the issues evolve.

53


Figure C.2. Process of the Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention Project in the UK Foresight Programme.

Source: http://www.Foresight.gov.uk/ An example of the process of conducting a Foresight exercise is provided by the recent Cyber Trust and Crime Prevention project in the UK Foresight Programme. The project was directed by Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor. The sponsor Minister for this project was the Rt. Hon. John Denham (Home Office). The project examined the application and implication of next-generation information technologies in areas such as identity and authenticity, surveillance, system robustness, security and information assurance. It consisted of four phases identified in the above figure. The scooping phase mapped the relevant subjects and the stakeholders concerned, with a view to involving them later in the process. The review and synthesis phases were the core research elements of the project. These phases included the writing of reviews of state of the art research by prominent academics. Participants were also engaged in a series of scooping workshops and, later, in a series of more structured seminar workshops that focused on particular scenarios. The final engagement stage has presented the results to influential decision makers and members of the public. As in the implementation of the project itself, a variety of fora were used to engage stakeholders with the project’s findings.

54


C.3 The Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme (TEP)

The Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme (TEP, following its Hungarian acronym) was initiated by the National Committee for Technological Development in 1997.7 This Foresight exercise was the first of its kind in Hungary and in Central and Eastern Europe. The ultimate objective of this Foresight Programme was to improve the long-term competitiveness of the country, thereby creating a better quality of life for Hungarians. To achieve this goal, TEP identified key issues and decision-making points for the development of various economic sectors in the country in the next 15-25 years. In addition to the preparation of reports on different economic sectors, an important objective was to stimulate cooperation between policymakers in research, business and government communities. TEP addressed the following questions:

• What social and economic trends will unfold in the next 15-25 years? What kind of opportunities will be created by research and technology development and innovation in these areas and what kind of problems should the researchers address?

• In which ways may the country’s resources be exploited most effectively to achieve economic prosperity and improve the quality of life?

• What kinds of changes are necessary with regard to regulation and government policies?

TEP adopted a variety of Foresight methods to involve a large number of stakeholders (thousands) in the process. One of these consisted of a series of a series of panels. The thematic panels analysed the following seven areas: 1) human resources, 2) health and life sciences, 3) Information technology, telecommunications and the media, 4) the protection and preservation of the natural and built environment, 5) manufacturing and business processes, 6) agribusiness and the food industry, and 7) transport. The panels prepared their reports after analysing the anticipated economic, social and market trends along with trends in science and technology. The panels made recommendations for decisions that had to be made in response to and to shape these developments. The reports were discussed at workshops held across the country, involving many external experts. These external experts were also engaged in the implementation phase. TEP also produced so-called “macro-scenarios”, considered to be a methodological innovation. These are visions of the future based on different assumptions about macro-level developments at the global level, and Hungary’s response to these. These macro-scenarios were considered relevant due to the profound social transformation occurring in the basic institutions of the Hungarian economy and society. In addition, a Delphi survey was held in TEP. The two-round, large-scale survey was carried out by the panels. It focused on future events that would significantly influence development, the commercialisations and application of science and 7 The description of this Foresight programme is based on information from http://www.nkth.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=159. In particular, the Report by the Steering Group (Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme. Report by the Steering Group. Budapest, 2000) and the report of an international panel on TEP (PREST. Evaluation of the Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme (TEP): Report of an International Panel. May, 2004).

55

http://www.nkth.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=159


technology, their social economic and environmental impacts, and the anticipated difficulties in development. The results of the Delphi survey identified certain trends that were of practical value to both business and government policymakers. An evaluation of TEP was carried out by PREST, at the University of Manchester, and published in 2004. The evaluation was charged with identifying whether TEP had met its objectives, and with informing decision-making on future Foresight activities in Hungary. In general, TEP was evaluated very favourably: “Overall, it may be concluded that TEP was efficiently and intelligently managed”.8 Some key findings of a survey held among TEP participants during the evaluation were:

• Participants were generally positive about the main features of the methodology employed: macro-visions, workshops and panels.

• Although most respondents regarded the Delphi survey as useful, there were some criticisms. There was pressure from the panels to include a large number of topics, which made the Delphi survey lengthy and complex, with negative consequences for the response rate.

• A broad range of stakeholders was represented in the panels, although some questions were raised about the real involvement of industry representatives. It was suggested that this may have been due to the cultural change that was underway in Hungary, whereby not all industrial participants were used to change or communicating their views.

In addition, the evaluation identified several concrete impacts on policy from the recommendations issued by the TEP Steering Group. When considering options for future Foresight activities, the evaluators of TEP stated: “the principle lesson from TEP is that Foresight needs a clear and consistent client base or, put another way, a well-mapped rout to implementation from the beginning”.9 Given this consideration, the evaluators advised against an immediate repeat of a broad Foresight exercise such as TEP. Instead, they invited the government to consider a Foresight activity in the form of a “key technologies” programme. Such a programme would be more narrowly focussed on funding priorities. Crucially, the survey results indicated substantial support for such an exercise.

C.4 eFORESEE in Malta

eFORESEE is a project that was funded by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Programme between January 2002 and December 2003.10 The project is continuing and several spin off activities have been started. eFORESEE addresses the challenges associated with implementing Foresight exercises in smaller economies and regions. In the eFORESEE project several pilot Foresight

8 PREST. Evaluation of the Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme (TEP): Report of an International Panel. May, 2004, Pp. 2. 9 Ibid. Pp. 7. 10 The description of the eFORESEE project in Malta is based on information from http://www.eforesee.info/. In particular: e-Foresee. Report on the First Pilot in Malta, D06, 28 February, 2003; Galea, D. and A. Felice. Realising a Thriving Biotechnology Industry by 2015. eForesee. December, 2003; Drago, A., and G. Cordina. Building the best future for the marine sector in the Maltese Islands. eFORESEE, March, 2004.

56

http://www.eforesee.info/


exercises were implemented in Cyprus, Estonia and Malta. Here, we focus on the pilot projects in Malta, and in particular on how they were embedded into the policymaking process.

The themes of the three Maltese pilot Foresight projects are:

• Pilot 1 – Exploring Knowledge Futures in ICT and Education in 2020;

• Pilot 2 – Towards a vibrant biotechnology sector within the Maltese economy by 2015; and

• Pilot 3 – Towards enhancing the marine sector’s contribution to the Maltese economy by 2020.

The Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) was the Maltese partner within eFORESEE and coordinated these pilot projects. In selecting and framing the thematic foci of these pilots, the MCST was aware of the need to address the main issues that were high on the political agenda of Maltese society and government. This was necessary to ensure broad support for and relevance of these projects. These main issues included Malta’s preparations for accession to the EU, and efforts to launch Malta Enterprise, that would integrate a number of key government bodies concerned with industrial development and innovation. The early scooping stage of the pilots was used to refine the focus. This included consultations with policymakers who would later provide vital support to the pilot projects. The following figure outlines the various steps in the process of conducting the first pilot Foresight on ICT and education in 2020. These steps are described in detail in the final report on this pilot, and similar activities are described in the reports on the other two pilots with a different thematic focus. The authors point out that, contrary to what the figure might suggest, the process is not a linear one, and many of the steps were carried out in parallel. The first step in the pilots consisted of mapping the stakeholders relevant to the topic being considered. In doing so, the organisers built upon their own experience by revisiting the National Strategy for Information Technology, the first Foresight activity held in Malta between 1993 and 1994. The ICT and education pilot began by contacting the participants in this previous exercise. The mapping of stakeholders also included individuals named by strategic policymakers, and respondents to widely published calls for expressions of interest.

57


Figure C.3. Process of the first Maltese pilot Foresight on ICT and education

STEP 1 Stakeholder Mapping

Stakeholder Pool

Strategic Expert Consultation STEP 2 Interviews Panel Clients On-line fora ExpertsDesk-based

STEP 3 Mapping Possible Science & Tech Feasible Econ & Political Alternative Futures Preferred Socio-cultural

Events andOn-Line

STEP 4 Exploring Scenarios Expert Panel

Meetings Facilitated

STEP 5 Feasibility Analysis SWOTs on Drivers

Expert Panel Meetings and WGs

STEP 6 STEP 6 Recommendations Action Lines and Reports Editoral Group Meetings

STEP 7 Dissemination Consultation

Implementation Events, Interviews,

Source: e-Foresee, report on the First Pilot in Malta, D06, 28 February, 2003, Pp 45. Objectives in each of the pilots were defined clearly. The objectives refer to both content and process elements of the Foresight exercises. The final reports on each of the pilots address the extent to which these objectives were achieved.

58


Specific, actionable recommendations were derived from the exercises. This enables the impact of the Foresight projects to be gauged. When launching the Foresight exercises, the organisers made use of the high-level political support they had obtained in the early scooping stages. This helped create stimulate interest in and create a momentum behind the projects. For example, the pilot Foresight on biotechnology was launched at a seminar at which two ministers made opening speeches. As well as substantive insights into the themes addressed, several lessons emerged from these pilots regarding the process of conducting Foresight. Indeed, one of the aims of eFORESEE was to build Foresight capacity in smaller countries. Some of these lessons are specific to the contexts concerned, while others are more generic to the requirements for linking Foresight to policy. The need for Foresight expertise was one such general lesson. The Maltese organisers acknowledged that there was a lack of Foresight expertise in their country. However, this expertise is developing fast. Another general lesson was that it is often difficult to engage key players in the Foresight process. This difficulty was ameliorated in the pilots by making the aims and foci of the pilot projects as relevant as possible to them, and by demonstrating that the projects enjoyed high-level political support. C.5 The Dutch Transition Approach to Sustainable Development

The term ‘transition approach’ denotes the drive towards and leadership of complex change processes. The transition approach concerns a wide range of policies and has long-term goals. Short-term objectives will, of course, also be realised, but these are not central to the transition approach. The far-reaching character of the transition approach implies changes in the relationships amongst government, market and society. Central control is replaced by mobilizing the creativity and economic power of companies and other stakeholders. Government, market and society together, through a process of cooperation, determine goals and ways to achieve those goals. This cooperation is necessary because there is no blueprint that details what a sustainable system looks like.

System thinking forms one key part of the transition approach. But the approach also emphasises cooperation amongst all the stakeholders involved. These stakeholders include industry and environment groups, knowledge infrastructure and government. In the past, the government would set the goals as well as the methods to achieve those goals. Moreover, there was little room for initiative from the market. In contrast to this top-down approach, transition management begins at the bottom and it is more flexible. The stakeholders, together with the government, search for creative ideas and sustainable solutions. The transition approach results in transition routes, which lay out the necessary steps and strategy changes over a period of 10 to 20 years. A transition route provides a footing for the stakeholders. More information on the approach can be found on www.vrom.nl and www.nido.nu. The transition approach has its roots in the Netherlands’ fourth National Environmental Policy Plan, which was issued in 2001. The plan does not operationalise the transition approach, but it does indicate four necessary transitions, which are being addressed by four different ministries: energy (Ministry of Economic Affairs), mobility (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management), agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food

59


Quality) and biodiversity (Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment coordinates and supports these transitions, partly via the ‘Transition Support Centre’. The transition projects are ongoing projects. The Energy Transition Project (of the Ministry of Economic Affairs) is seen as an exemplary project in the field of Foresight. The Energy Transition project teams have set out five main transition roads: efficient and green gas, chain efficiency, green raw materials, alternative motor fuels and sustainable electricity. These roads give direction to long-term policy, but do not specify concrete goals – a conscious choice. Transition paths within each main road form the paths for technological and social transitions. These paths connect the necessary technological developments, social changes and stakeholders’ efforts. After working these transition paths out in more detail, they will give direction to energy and innovation policy. More information can be found on www.energietransitie.nl.

60

http://www.energietransitie.nl/


Appendix D: The online questionnaire

This appendix contains the text of the questionnaire we fielded. Respondents were asked to evaluate one of three proposal abstracts. Each proposal built upon the work of a Fifth Framework project concerned with sustainable transport, called SUMMA, to conduct a Foresight exercise in the area of sustainable mobility. Respondents were asked to evaluate this proposal abstract according to a number of criteria. The three proposal abstracts vary in the extent to which they follow the initial nine principles that we identified.

The aim of the survey was twofold: First, to identify the level of knowledge about and acceptance of the principles for conducting Foresight; and, second, to obtain insights into the appropriate foci of a Foresight in the area of sustainable transport. Text of questionnaire Background

Foresight studies formulate and explore visions of the future, exploring developments in science, technology and society. While there are a variety of ways of conducting Foresight exercises, they do share some common features, namely:

• Systematic thinking about the medium to long term future;

• Broad scope, including social and natural sciences;

• The formulation of actions and/or priorities; and

• The creation of new networks of actors.

The information you provide in response to this questionnaire will be used to formulate some practical guidelines for conducting policy-relevant Foresight and for designing a Foresight exercise on sustainable transport. This survey is part of the project “Improving the science/policy relationship with the help of Foresight: a European perspective”, currently being conducted by RAND Europe for DG Research of the European Commission. Additional information about this project can be obtained from Erik Frinking ([email protected]) or Robert Thomson ([email protected]). RAND Europe Newtonweg 1 2333 CP LEIDEN The Netherlands +31 71 524 51 51 http://www.rand.org/randeurope/

61


Instructions for completing this questionnaire

In the following sections, we first present a short “pre-proposal” that we have prepared for building upon the work done in a Fifth Framework project concerned with sustainable transport, called SUMMA. You will then be asked to rate the overall quality of this pre-proposal, and then to rate it on specific criteria. We believe this pre-proposal has certain strengths and weaknesses, and we would like you to consider these when reading it. After evaluating this pre-proposal, you will be asked a few questions about your preferences regarding the content and design of a Foresight exercise in the area of sustainable mobility.

This questionnaire should take about 20-30 minutes. A pre-proposal for building upon the work of SUMMA

We assume that you are familiar with the work of the SUMMA project (http://www.summa-eu.org/). The SUMMA project (2002-2005) was designed to support policymakers by providing them with a framework and tools for making trade-offs, where appropriate, among the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability when formulating transport policy.

The question is how the work of the SUMMA project should be taken forward. Should the focus be on:

• Improving data-collection;

• Improving and completing the set of Outcome Indicators, with which the outcomes of the transport system can be monitored;

• Monetising the Outcome Indicators so that they can be compared more readily;

• Developing a better way of performing an integrated assessment using the Outcome Indicators than that based on the Social Welfare Function;

• Prioritising Research and Technology Development investments; or

• Some other area/s?

The most appropriate way forward depends on the evaluation of future transport needs, and developments that impact upon the options available to transport policymakers. Consequently, a Foresight exercise is proposed to examine the future of sustainable transport in Europe. (NB: Each respondent receives one of the following three proposal abstracts)

Pre proposal X, Sustainable Transport 2025 Topics

Sustainable Transport 2025 aims to take the work of SUMMA forward by addressing the questions that remained unanswered at the end of that project. In doing so, the project will identify the tools that policymakers will need to meet the competing demands of environmental cleanliness and mobility. In particular, Sustainable Transport 2025 will focus on:

62

http://www.summa-eu.org/


• Outcome Indicators: What outcomes should be considered, and if possible measured, when developing sustainable transport policies?

• Data collection: What data need to be collected to ensure that policymakers have the necessary information to take informed decisions over the next 10-20 years?

• Monetisation: Is it possible to develop a valid set of comparable Outcome Indicators that will enable policymakers to evaluate the impacts of alternative courses of action?

• Alternative integrated assessment methods: Are there alternatives to integrated assessment based on monetised values?

Organisation

The European Commission’s DG Research proposes to establish the Foresight exercise, in cooperation with DG Transport and DG Environment. The involvement of several DGs will ensure that the exercise enjoys a high profile, attracts and sustains the interest of relevant stakeholders, and that, where appropriate, the results will inform policy decisions affecting sustainable transport. A unit within DG research will be charged with coordinating Sustainable Transport 2025 over a period of 18 months.

Stakeholder selection

The Foresight exercise will begin by conducting an extensive and systematic scoping of the stakeholders who have an interest in and are relevant to European policy formulation in the area of sustainable transport. After this scoping stage, a selection of stakeholders will be made that constitutes a representative range of interests and perspectives on the issues to be addressed. The SUMMA network is a good start, since it contains stakeholders with expert knowledge and policymakers. However, this network needs to be reassessed to ensure that it is sufficiently representative, and includes participants who can offer new perspectives, including relevant civil society and environmental groups from all parts of Europe.

Foresight methods

A careful selection of Foresight techniques will ensure that the involvement of each of the stakeholder groups is optimal. Techniques will be selected considering the levels of specialist knowledge held by the participants and the possibility of constructive interaction among them. For instance, when groups of experts with formalised knowledge are discussing specific issues, Delphi-like techniques have proven useful. Such techniques allow participants to propose and amend solutions to problems without losing face in a group. In other settings, structured focus groups in which alternative scenarios are explored and evaluated are more appropriate. Scenarios can be adjusted to spark the interest of participants with varying levels of specialist knowledge.

Although the involvement of different stakeholder groups in Sustainable Transport 2025 will differ according to their interest in the issues and the knowledge they hold, we propose an integrated project design. This means that the opinions they voice and the reasoning behind those opinions will be shared with other stakeholders. This will enable the identification of areas of consensus

63


and of disagreement. When there are disagreements, Foresight improves understanding among participants, since they are given insight not only into differences of opinion, but also into the reasoning behind those differences. One of the benefits of such understanding is that it can be used to formulate new strategies that respond to the concerns underlying disagreements.

Outputs

The integrated project design will also include provisions to ensure that the results feed into a variety of strategic policy decisions at the appropriate times. This means, for example, that the results will be made available to decision-makers before they take decisions on the allocation of funds for research and technology development in the area of sustainable transport. Large infrastructural investments involving public funds will also benefit from the results of Sustainable Transport 2025. The project will identify several upcoming key decisions in the area of European policy for sustainable mobility and will ensure that all its findings are made available to the relevant decision-makers on time.

Evaluation

The project will also include provisions for feedback from participants and external evaluation. Feedback from participants will focus on their views on the quality of their involvement in the Foresight exercise. This feedback will be used to monitor the quality of the process and, where appropriate, to adjust the design. An external evaluation will be conducted by a panel of experts on Foresight and sustainable transport. The panel will report once during the Foresight exercise, and once after its completion.

Pre proposal Y, Building Sustainable Mobility

Objective

The objective the Foresight exercise proposed here is to help European decision-makers address the complex trade offs involved in formulating sustainable transport policies. This requires building knowledge about the nature and scale of the demands that should be considered when taking decisions in this area. The demands include those for higher levels of mobility, for lower levels of pollution and for the preservation of natural areas. These demands need to be considered when taking decisions about the design of RTD programmes, and investments in infrastructure relating to road, rail, inland waterways, sea and air transport.

Organisation

This Foresight exercise is proposed by an independent European public policy research organisation in response to a competitive tender issued by the European Commission’s DG Research. The budget proposed will allow us to operate a dedicated secretariat that will coordinate the Foresight exercise for the project’s entire duration of 18 months. The relationship with the Commission will be arms’ length to ensure that the project’s independence is safeguarded.

64


Selection of stakeholders

Identifying and involving the right stakeholders is the first stage of implementing a Foresight exercise. To do so, we will begin by formulating a framework consisting of the various types of demands and decisions that need to be considered. Then, for each combination of demands and decisions, a range of stakeholders will be identified. Formal techniques for identifying stakeholders, such as the co-nomination technique in which the selected stakeholders nominate others, will be employed. The procedures for identifying stakeholders will be flexible enough to allow the inclusion of those not originally foreseen in the framework of demands and decisions. The selection will include the members of the SUMMA network, but also a range of other stakeholders.

Selection of topics

A series of consultations will be held with the selected stakeholders to identify and refine the topics to be addressed in the Foresight exercise. We will hold these consultations with like-minded groups of stakeholders, so that they can air their views freely without being challenged. The topics identified will be divided into those that are specific to particular types of decisions, for example investments in road transport, and those that are relevant to several types of decisions. The topics identified in the SUMMA project, such as the application of alternative integrated assessment tools, are likely to be of relevance to several types of decision. However, we do intend to include topics other than those identified in the SUMMA project.

Foresight can contribute to policy development by building consensus among the stakeholders with an interest in a policy area. This function of Foresight will be used to its fullest potential. After the identification of topics during the stakeholder consultations, we will make an inventory of those topics on which there appears to be consensus among different groups of stakeholders, or on which there is a high likelihood of consensus building through discussion. Topics on which there are large disagreements will be reported, but not included in the subsequent rounds of this Foresight exercise, since there is little possibility for progress on these.

Methods

After the stakeholders have been identified and the topics selected, the stakeholders will be brought together in a series of meetings that will focus on particular types of decisions in the area of sustainable transport and the topics associated with these decisions. In addition, there will be meetings on cross-cutting topics that are relevant to various types of decision. In addition to building consensus on the selected topics, these meetings are expected to form valuable new networks in the policy community. Participants will be asked to give feedback on each of the sessions, which will be used to optimise the design of subsequent sessions. Additional feedback and evaluation will be given by an independent international panel of experts on sustainable transport and Foresight. These experts will report during the project and after its completion.

65


Outputs

A clear and comprehensive framework of demands and types of decisions is relevant not only when implementing the Foresight exercise, but also when ensuring that the results feed into strategic policy decisions. This framework will allow us to identify the appropriate target audiences to whom the findings are relevant. Although the proposed design is integrated, it is also modularised, which allows the selected topics to be dealt with in depth. This also has the advantage that when disseminating the results to the target audiences, the relevant findings are easily identifiable. The effectiveness of this tailored dissemination strategy will also be strengthened by the relationships we will build with the stakeholder groups during the consultations when identifying the topics for inclusion. This will also alert us to decisions of strategic importance to which the projects results could contribute. By feeding the findings into the decision-making process at the right time, the impact of the project will be optimal.

Pre proposal Z, Foresight for Sustainable Mobility

Objectives

The European Commission proposes to establish a European Foresight exercise to examine what actions can be taken now to ensure sustainable mobility in the future. An effective and sustainable transport system is one that meets the potentially competing demands associated with economic competitiveness, the quality of the natural environment and social cohesion. Meeting the challenge of combining these demands is part of the vision formulated for Europe in the Lisbon strategy. Transport plays a vitally important role in realising this vision by enabling economic activities and a high standard of living for European citizens. This Foresight exercise will develop knowledge that will inform decisions concerning trans European transport networks. This includes decisions pertaining to investments in infrastructure as well as RTD investments that aim to improve the use of current and future transport infrastructure.

Topic selection

The Foresight exercise will begin with a horizon scan to identify the emerging issues that will be faced by European transport policymakers over the next 10 to 20 years. The emergence of these new issues is driven by a range of factors, including technological, social, economic and political developments. The first stage of the project will examine the nature of these developments, the uncertainties associated with them, and their possible impacts on the problems and demands that will be faced by decision-makers, as well as the options available to them. By focusing on the developments behind emerging issues, Foresight for Sustainable Mobility will build upon, and also go beyond the issues identified in the SUMMA project. The SUMMA project identified several important issues that need to be addressed if decision-makers are to have the tools they need to make informed decisions, including the collection of data to monitor progress and methods for making trade offs among alternatives. While these issues will certainly be included in the focus of this Foresight, it is imperative to consider them in the light of the uncertainties associated with future developments.

66


Stakeholder selection

Foresight for Sustainable Mobility also builds upon the work of SUMMA by making use of the network of experts and policymakers involved in that project. The completeness of the network will be reviewed to ensure that it includes representatives of transport policymakers from all Member States and relevant parts of the European policy community, and researchers with an understanding of both transport and sustainability.

Organisation

The Foresight exercise will be established by the European Commission’s DG Research in cooperation with DG Transport and DG Environment and run by an independent consortium The consortium will appoint a small dedicated group of staff to organise the Foresight exercise for the entire 18 month duration of the project. There will be visible commitment to the Foresight from the European Commission and from ministers in national governments. There will be a small high-level steering committee composed of senior policymakers. This committee will be charged with building and sustaining momentum, and cultivating receptive audiences for the findings. DG Research will monitor progress and ensure that the exercise proceeds according to plan.

Methodology

Foresight techniques will be selected to structure and optimise the interactions among the participants involved. The most appropriate technique depends, among other things, on the extent to which the tasks to be carried out can be well-structured before the participants meet, and the amount of controversy the tasks raise. In the first stages of the project, the focus will be on scanning developments that may give rise to new issues for transport policymakers. Appropriate techniques to use for this type of task involve the construction of alternative scenarios. Scenario-based techniques do justice to the inherent uncertainty associated with macro-developments. Participants will be invited to experiment with and explore a range of possible futures. Where appropriate, formal models will be used to examine the implications of assumptions about how the future could unfold. For more readily structurable tasks, such as the establishment of research priorities, given agreement on key objectives and future uncertainties, other, more formalised Foresight methods are appropriate. All Foresight techniques will be applied with the aim of detecting and exploring areas of agreement and disagreement, not only at the level of the positions taken and the views expressed, but also at the deeper level of the reasoning behind these positions and views. Only then will it be possible to identify and understand the areas in which new policies are likely to receive adequate support and those in which there are barriers to policy development.

Outputs

Measures will be taken to ensure that the relevant findings of this Foresight exercise are received by the relevant sectors of the policymaking and research communities. This requires that this project has a high profile and that its organisers and participants cultivate relationships with key stakeholders. The high-level steering committee is charged with pursuing these objectives. In addition, the impact of the findings depends on bringing particularly relevant

67


findings to the attention of the relevant stakeholders and ensuring that the implications of the findings for those stakeholders’ strategies are clearly elaborated.

1. What is your overall evaluation of this pre-proposal? Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfactory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

2.a. How would you rate this pre-proposal in terms of:

Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The relevance of the issues it focuses on to sustainable transport in Europe?

2.b. How important is this criterion? Not important 1

2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know

2.c. If you rated the proposal “very poor” or “poor” on this criterion, tell us in one or two sentences what was wrong. a. 3.a. How would you rate this pre-proposal in terms of:

Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The appropriateness of the proposed selection of stakeholders?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know

68



Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The ways in which the selected stakeholders are involved?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that new and valuable networks will be formed among the stakeholders involved?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know

5.c. If you rated the proposal “very poor” or “poor” on this criterion, tell us in one or two sentences what was wrong. a.

69



Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The use of expertise on sustainable transport?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The use of expertise on Foresight? 7.b. How important is this criterion? Not important 1

2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will produce results that are accurate and scientifically valid?

70



2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

Its provisions for getting all relevant opinions on the table?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

Its provisions for evaluation of the Foresight exercise?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


71


The following sets of questions are about the extent to which the Foresight exercise proposed holds the promise of having an impact on policy in three areas: - Regulation; - Investments in Research and Technology Development; - Measures to stimulate the deployment of new technologies. For each area, we ask you to consider the potential impact of the proposed Foresight at 1) the European level and 2) the national/regional level. 11.a. How would you rate this pre-proposal in terms of:

Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of regulations at the European level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of regulations at the national/regional level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know

72



Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of investments in Research and Technology Development at the European level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of investments in Research and Technology Development at the national/regional level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


73



Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of measures to stimulate the deployment of new technologies at the European level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know


Very poor 1

Poor 2

Satisfac-tory 3

Good 4

Very good 5

Don’t know

The likelihood that it will have an impact on the formulation of measures to stimulate the deployment of new technologies at the national/regional level?


2

3

4

Very important 5

Don’t know

16.c. If you rated the proposal “very poor” or “poor” on this criterion, tell us in one or two sentences what was wrong. a. 17. In addition to the criteria mentioned above, which other criteria, if any, influenced your overall evaluation of the pre-proposal? Other criteria k.

l. m.

74


75

18. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statement: There is a need for a European Foresight exercise on sustainable transport.

Strongly disagree 1

Disagree 2

Neither agree nor disagree 3

Agree 4

Strongly agree 5

19. If you believe there is a need for a European Foresight exercise on sustainable transport with a focus on Research and Technology Development (RTD), what are the main questions this Foresight exercise should address with respect to RTD? 1st. 2nd. 3rd. 20. What other questions, if any, should the Foresight exercise on sustainable transport address? 4th. 5th. 6th. 21. Who should be the main users of the results of this Foresight exercise? a. b. c. 22. If you have any other comments on the focus of the planned Foresight exercise on sustainable transport or on any other relevant topics, please enter these here. −

European Commission

EUR 21967 Using foresight to improve the science-policy relationship March 2006

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2006 — 76 pp. — 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-79-02010-2

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities are available from our sales agents throughout the world.

You can find the list of sales agents on the Publications Office website (http://publications.europa.eu) or you can apply for it by fax (352) 29 29-42758.

Contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order.

KI-NA-21967-EN

-C

using foresight to improve the science-policy relationship · 2015 (socintec) 6. eu research and...

Documents