web 2.0 for foresight 1 karel haegeman, 1 cristiano cagnin, 2 totti könnölä, 3 georgi dimitrov...

Web 2.0 for foresight

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

European Commission (1JRC-IPTS, 3DG EAC), 2Impetu Solutions, 4Spigit inc.

The 4th International Seville Conference onFuture-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)

12 & 13 May 2011

Experiences on an Innovation Platform in European Agenda Setting

Web 2.0 for Foresight

organiser: Security and Defence Agenda

Global brainstorm

How to respond to 21st century security challenges?

4,000 participants

124 countries5 days

10 recommendations

2 examples of web 2.0 foresight in agenda setting

creating a new generation of public servants

2017: 150th anniversary of Canada

150 early-career public servants

How can Public Service meet the challenges in 2017?

one year

participants were taught new skills for each new phase

mutual learning about holistic views on challenges


For now mainly private sector use

Public sector web 2.0 foresight examples limited

Some authors studied the topic

Look at related fields: Web 2.0 in (market) research, mixing data of all types and sources (triangulation)

Schillewaert et al (2009) Two types of social networking platforms:

Primary research platform and Secondary research platforms

Da Costa et al (2008)Online social networks from the perspective of the Foresight Diamond (Popper, 2008): creativity, expertise, evidence and

interaction.

Gheorghiou et al (2009)Framework for a Delphi 2.0 platform for

future oriented communities

State of play

Rahti and Given (2010) Framework for quantitative and qualitative research in web

2.0 environments

Cooke and Buckley (2008) Trends facilitating the development of new approaches in

market research


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

From respondents to participants

From 1-to-1 learning to mutual learning and co-creation

From traditional to connected research


A framework for primary web 2.0 foresight platforms based on the For-Learn Foresight Cycle

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

Development of each step of the cycle

Applied to a practical foresight experience for EIT (performed by JRC-IPTS with support of DG EAC)


The case study: EIT-IPTS foresight platform

Context: What is a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC)? Main instrument of the EIT Highly integrated, creative and excellence-driven innovation partnership bringing together education, research and business Objectives: increase competitiveness in Europe and tackle societal challenges Until now three KICs: Climate KIC, KIC ICTLabs, KIC InnoEnergy As part of the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) the EIT will propose priority areas for future KICs

Foresight case: Aim: assist EIT to collect, assess and analyse ideas for "world-leading innovation, integrating education, business and research with a focus on specific thematic areas” Focus on research communities (university researchers, PRO´s and private research) Potential to serve as input for the SIA together with other inputs Web 2.0 foresight approach


The case study: EIT-IPTS foresight platform

Project roadmap


Step 1: Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach

Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight

- allow stakeholders to learn more than they give and not just to extract information - when seeking to co-create more added value than with traditional surveys - when community building is targeted- if the project client seeks to increase transparency of its organisation or the way it takes decisions- when the client seeks to get wider support from stakeholders in shaping decisions and actions

Reasons for NOT using a web 2.0 approach to foresight1

- unwillingness to give control to participants- aversion to accept and handle critique or provide concrete solutions- the belief that it will solve all the problems- lack of resources and skills- lack of fit between tools and research objectives- if the sole purpose is to be fashionable- resistance towards unknown and fuzzy outcomes at the outset

1Schillewaert et al, 2009

The framework


Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight

bring creativity to the debate on priority settingexplicit use of a bottom-up participatory process (themes for first wave were decided top-down)less relevant: community building

Lessons learned

Need to stress the focus all along the project, and manage expectations (novel approach, lack of concrete examples, difficulties to describe outcomes in concrete terms)Increased transparency but without loosing much control over the processDiscussions on the role of community building

Step 1: Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach

The case


Step 2: conditions to analyse

Need for support and ownership from policy-makers, not only in running the foresight exercise, but also in using a collaborative methodological approach and its consequences.

Possible consequences:

- may involve a greater degree of loss of control

- a certain degree of flexibility to adapt the plan, and a good framework tolerating this

- the form the outcomes will take may not be so clear from the outset

- expectations about stakeholder involvement in other steps of the process

The framework The case

Possible consequences only partially discussed at the outset.

Control played an important role in scoping the exercise (see step 3), but full impact not clear from the outset.

Good flexibility to adapt the process, but no framework (thus discussions on changes were time consuming)

Form of the outcomes was not very clear from the outset.


Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise

Stakeholders: Define way of recruitment - Possible channels: ○Use of existing databases (or construction of new ones)○Snowball○Promotion at existing online platforms○Wider online and offline communication plan: press release, post news items on portals, banners on related websites

Objectives: Outcome related and process related (see step 1)

Motivations to participate: Translate objectives into outcomes for each user group:

○learning about the content and about working in a web 2.0 environment○contributing to shaping future decisions ○build their own reputation as experts ○market own ideas to the community○build new networks○seek fame or fun (Bughin, 2008)


○Recruitment channels: databases and snowball

○Platform activity: 80/20 rule

○Motivations to participate: possibility of

attendance to validation workshop


Attributes for the design of web 2.0 foresight exercises


The framework

Attribute 1: Degree of representation:

What? Balance between user groups, sectoral balance, or other profile elements (age, geographic location, expertise)

When? Depends on the objectives

How? - During recruitment: use channels with a high degree of

control (e.g. databases, focused user groups on social networking sites).

- During implementation: use of moderation and techniques for enhancement of activity

- During analysis: analyse results according to profile variables

The case

An element of discussion all along the process (due to unclarity in the focus?)



The framework

Attribute 2: Degree of steering of platform activity:

What? Indirect steering of platform content

Why? - increasing the activity on the platform - improving existing proposals or issues - steer the content towards the objectives or expected outcomes- increase representation of different stakeholder groups- increase creativity

How? - Moderation on the platform: asking questions, adding comments, flagging topics, move topics to a next stage- Targeted messaging to platform members based on their individual behaviour: ´Send your idea/topic to people you know and invite them to comment/rate it´- Tools for drawing attention to highlights: rankings, flagging, tagging, summaries of discussions by platform ´journalists´.

The case

Fairly low steering of the platform. Also an element of discussion all along the process.



Attribute 3: Degree of openness of the platform:

- Completely closed: Accessible for a predefined set of participants (FTA preconference platform)- Completely open: Accessibility for any member of the relevant stakeholder groups (E.g. security Jam)- Mixed approaches combining personal invitations e.g. with a snowball or with targeted advertising.

Attribute 4: Degree of freedom to engage

Related to the degree of steering, although not contradictory to it

How?- platform members can add new topics for discussion- they are engaged in shaping the next stage(s), in the analysis, in the dissemination - summarised information on members´ behaviour is available


Openness: ´fairly closed´

Engagement possibilities:

- post, vote and comment ideas- add new categories of ideas- engagement in the workshop


Step 4: web 2.0 methods and tools



Step 5: running a web 2.0 foresight exercise

Pilot before launch: - add some first contributions- approaching leading names- collect oral and written feedback on content, functionalities, user-friendliness

Issues of design:- Registration: members´ profile, compulsory and not compulsory fields, which fields will be displayed?- Differentiation between roles: visitor, member, expert, moderator, administrator - Customisation of information displayed to participants, depending on their profile and interests: ´follow´ discussions, ideas, or other members; alternative ways to display content (e.g. latest discussions, topics by theme, most viewed, best rated, most discussed). - Simple design - Duration of the platform: days or years?


Pilot before launch: - 4 initial ideas uploaded by JRC-IPTS, pre-invitation to 35 researchers and 26 Commission staff, 2 additional ideas added during the pilot- oral and written feedback - many improvements needed on functionalities and clarity of understanding- some more changes introduced after the launch

Functionalities that did not work well: - social networking- discussion forum by idea or category- multi-criteria voting

Reasons: design and motivations?

Duration: 7 weeks

Functionalities that did work: - posting ideas (around 100 posts)- commenting ideas


Posts per day Sign-ups per day Views per day

Communication plan: relates to all the steps of the cycle

Privacy and ethics:

- use of a privacy statement and rules. - Anonymity: are anonymous postings desirable? - Suicide functionality- IPR (Participants as co-authors of final products? - What data will be public (beyond the platform)?)

Step 5: running a web 2.0 foresight exercise

The framework

The case

High fluctuation of platform activity based on communication activity


Step 5: running a web 2.0 exercise


Data sense-making:

- Two types of data: supplied by participants (text, votes, pictures,…) or stemming from their behaviour (viewing activity, networking data,…)- Aspects facilitating sense-making:

- platform design based on a clear view on the types of analysis targeted- use of tools that allow for both data collection and data analysis- use of tools that allow the extraction of data in formats that are suited for analysis and that include links between different types of data.

- use of the platform community for data sense-making

Ideas by category (total=103)

17%

17%

14%13%

10%

9%

6%

5%

5%4%

Digital & Networked Society

Sustainable Production andConsumption

Health

Other

Energy

Climate Change

Mobility

Food

Demographic Change

Poverty

Instead critical success factors were identified to connect data in proposing new priority areas

A first attempt in grouping data: by category


Dissemination of results:- Part of communication plan (see 2.5)- Use of the platform to disseminate results to the wider network of the platform members- Take into account ownership and authorship issues

Evaluation of web 2.0 foresight exercises: - See For-Learn eight-step framework for conducting an evaluation process

Lifetime of the platform:- What will happen with the platform after the end of the project?- How to deal with stakeholders´ loss of information about their contributions and their new contacts?- Use of the platform in a more permanent way: for follow-up stages of the project, during implementation of actions, or as an ongoing discussion platform (e.g. Atlantic Community)

Step 6: follow-up


To be determined


Conclusions

2. Key design issues

clarity about process and outcome objectives

a systematic approach to tool selection

pilot before the launch

a clear view on data sense-making

certain degree of autonomy in the management of the foresight process.

simple platform design

communication

3. Barriers to increased application

resistance to increased transparency and loss of control

cultural issues

1. High potential for advancing transparency and the foresight toolbox

2006 IBM Innovation Jam: 150.000 participants in two times three days

lack of understanding

web 2.0 for foresight 1 karel haegeman, 1 cristiano cagnin, 2 totti könnölä, 3 georgi dimitrov...

Documents

foresight step

foresight platforms

foresight examples

foresight reasons

foresight approach slide

foresight figure

foresight organiser

foresight exercise