Week 2 : Wednesday 18 October Lecturer: Jennifer Harper

1. Week 2 : Wednesday 18 October Lecturer: Jennifer Harper Topic: Historical Overview of Foresight Evolving Rationales and STI Policy Approaches Please scroll to the end of the presentation for Important information on Individual Assignments and Group Presentations

2. Outline • Foresight in historical context • Chronology of future studies • National Foresight rationale • National Innovation Policy and foresight • Chronology of national foresight activity • Private sector foresight • Rationale for corporate foresight • Public-Private sector rationales • 4 Generations of Foresight • Questions for discussion

3. Foresight in historical context • Foresight emerges from future studies, itself an evolving concept • Global geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural impacts on future studies and foresight • Evolving rationales of foresight with emergence of STS and developments in thinking on national systems of innovation • Towards a convergence of public/private rationales? • What of new rationales: regional, transnational?

4. Chronology of Future studies 50’s-60’s • Utopian, utilitarian approach to future studies largely dominated by US worldview • First systematic approaches: forecasting in US • 60’s science-art schism/ dual approaches • Golden age – more science than art • OECD-sponsored work by Austrian Erich Jantsch on Technology forecasting (an art) • Dominance of technology-oriented think-tanks (Keynesian central planning) • Forward view in trans-national corporations

5. Chronology of Future studies (60’s) • Technology forecasting established practice in US for military and industrial purposes as compared to more arts-oriented approach in Europe • Jouvenel: conjecture to stress the uncertainty of the field and difficulty of making models of the future • Big international conference (Oslo, 1967) In Mankind 2000", Galtung challenges the traditional division of labour between ideologists who establish values, scientists who establish trends, and politicians who try to adjust means to ends • 1967 Kahn’s Year 2000 introduced scenario-writing

6. European Impact of war & nation-building Sceptical mood :anti-science & technology Civic, social activist-emancipatory orientation Peace studies (Galtung), Visioning workshops (Masini) Future studies as conjectural thinking reflecting a more arts-oriented approach (de Jouvenel, Futuribles) European response to US technocentric approaches North American Laissez-faire economic prosperity, optimism and power Era of big science, Space and arms race: Focus on quantitative methodologies, technocratic scenarios, forecasting Key players: Rand, Hudson Institute and Stanford pioneers of future studies Delphi forecasts, technology assessments, and macro-economic analyses as key tools Post-WW Dual Approaches

7. Europe World Futures Studies Federation (1973) Paris with UNESCO assistance www.wfsf.org Club of Rome www.clubofrome.org 1967 (Agnelli Foundation) Futuribles Group (1962 Paris) www. futuribles.com/ US World Futures Society Washington (1966) www.wfs.org Global Business Network, California (1987) www.gbn.org Association of Professional Futurists Midland, US (APF) www.profuturists.com Key Players

8. Chronology of Future studies (70s’) • Geopolitical crises (Vietnam and oil) challenged technocratic mindsets • Shift from trends and predictions to incorporate sudden shocks and alternative futures • Western worldview based on certainty, predictability, control and instrumental rationality seems now fractured and incoherent (Slaughter) • Shift from management by objectives and forecasting to scenario-driven planning, computer simulations and systems theory • ‘the expansionary ethos of technological civilisation’ questioned and need for limits to growth highlighted (Club of Rome) • Future studies emerges as transdisciplinary social science.

9. Chronology of Future studies • 1973 French approach lead by Berger and successors (La Prospective) emphasizing the importance of human values and education in preparation for, and as elements in, planning. • Contrast of French approach with Anglo-Saxon future-oriented activities: the future as the inevitable extension of the present and favouring short-term partial programmes. • Slaughter and Bell (US) published volumes on future studies (history, methods, ethics and future directions) • Daniel Bell, Toffler and later Naisbitt highlight future trends and megatrends.

10. Chronology of Future studies (80’s-90’s) • Godet’s work on scenarios inspired large number of scenario-based studies on Year 2000 • 1986 Stockholm workshop on surprising futures • 1993 Sardar’s Colonizing the Future analyses the evolution of futures studies as increasingly an instrument for marginalising non-Western cultures from the future. • 1994 Jungk participatory foresight emerges - futures workshops involving ordinary people in creating possible and desirable futures • 1995 Slaughter’s "The Foresight Principle“ projects foresight as the process of attempting to broaden the boundaries of perception by careful futures scanning and the clarification of emerging situations. Foresight is not the ability to predict the future, but a way of facilitating desirable individual and social change.

11. National Foresight • Rationales • Context • Drivers • Policy • New Policy Paradigm • Innovation Policy and Foresight • Extending range and focus • Country examples

12. Foresight and National Policy Foresight in government can not define policy, but it can help condition policies to be more appropriate, more flexible and more robust in their implementation, as times and circumstance change. Coates (1985)

13. Shifting Rationales of National Foresight • 1970’s Picking the winners: technology foresight as the means for identifying emerging technologies likely to yield economic and social benefits • 1980’s Realisation that governments cannot ‘pick winners’ and that this implies a move away from selective policies and a stronger focus on framework conditions, i.e. conditions that are in principle common to all the players (firms) in the national economy

14. Shifting Rationales of National Foresight • 1990’s Range of foresight objectives related to wiring up the national and regional system of innovation and more long-term coherent, and joined-up approaches to innovation policy (to learn and innovate more effectively) • 2000’s More emphasis on embedding of a ‘Foresight culture’together withcreation of visions and/or priority-setting(Keenan,2001) • Process vs content as key outcomes • Different forms of foresight spark new rationales

15. Context: Global • Concept of globalising learning economy and national systems of innovation (Lundvall) – need for fast learning and unlearning to keep ahead. • Alearning economy is an economy where the ability to learn is crucial for the economic success of individuals, firms, regions and national economies. • “Learning” refers to building new competences and establishing new skills and not just to “getting access to information”.

16. Drivers of change Martin’s key drivers of change in the economy over coming decades - the 4 Cs: • increasing Competition (globalisation, more players, varying labour costs –unemployment, social cohesion, sustainability and risk) • increasing Constraints on public expenditure (need to balance budget deficit, accountability, efficiency) • increasing Complexity (convergence of levels, systems, sectors, technologies, need for better understanding of complex systems, improved networking) • increasing importance of scientific and technological Competencies (knowledge a strategic resource, fast job change,need for continuous learning, generic skills)

17. Innovation Policy Innovation policy refers to elements of S&T & industrial policy explicitly aimed at promoting the development, spread & efficient use of new products, services & processes in markets or inside private & public organisations. Main focus of innovation policy: • Impact on economic performance and social cohesion • policies aimed at organisational change & marketing of new products. Other policy areas affect innovation: • competition policy, and macroeconomic policy, • sectoral policies: environment, energy, transport, IT & communications • education and human resource development policy. Source: adapted from Lundvall (ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/tser/docs/globeco.doc

18. New Innovation Policy Paradigm The new paradigm is oriented towards shaping an efficient innovation system that can adapt to rapid change. The new policy paradigm focuses on creating adaptable innovation systems by: • firstly, stimulating learning institutions and economic actors; • secondly, developing integrative and coordinated policy visions and instruments for enhancing innovation; and • thirdly, creating the conditions for a policy-making process which is also learning and adapting constantly to the new demands and conditions of the economy.

19. Innovation Policy and Foresight • Innovation policy has wider objectives than S&T policy (supply-driven and demand-driven measures)..concern with the innovation system as a whole and with policies to improve its dynamics by increasing interaction, networking and learning between key players. Foresight has a critical role to play here.. The foresight process involves intense iterative phases of open reflection, networking, consultation, and discussion leading to the joint refining of future visions and the common ownership of strategies, with the aim of exploiting long-term opportunities opened up through the impact of STI on society …. It is the discovery of a common space for open thinking on the future and the incubation of strategic approaches … the foresight process has no beginning or end, since it builds on previous and ongoing conversations and consultations and sets in motion learning curves and other intangible spin-offs which are not easily captured in short timeframes

20. Extending range of national foresightobjectives • Priority setting • Reorienting Science & Innovation system • Demonstrating vitality of S & I system • Bringing new actors into the strategic debate • Building new networks and linkages across fields, sectors & markets or around problems • All above may be at organisational, local, regional, national or supranational levels • Timescale ranges from immediate future to far horizon Source: Georghiou, 2003 http://www.unido.org/file-storage/download/27

21. Extending Focus of Foresight topics • Scientific and Technological • Economic • Industrial • Demographic change • Social • Political • Environmental/ Sustainable development • Cultural

22. History and origins of national foresight 50-60’s First experiences in United States • Technology forecasting, development of techniques (Delphi, scenarios), large forecasting exercises by DOD • Field Surveys (astronomy, life sciences): platform to educate industry & government • Limited impact: did not address socio-economic demands or priority-setting • Late 80’s declining competitiveness lead to upsurge of interest in foresight • Foresight exercises by DOD, Department of Commerce, Council on Competitiveness, Aerospace Industries Assoc • short list of critical technologies using explicit selection criteria applied to initial long list • Over-reliance on a committee - limited interaction with industrial and scientific communities and less commitment to results Source: adapted from Ben Martin (2001)

23. History and origins of national foresight 70’s Japan • STA 30-Year Forecasts - predictive + normative (goal-setting) • ‘holistic’ overview, incorporate socio-economic needs, S&T advances • Process benefits more important than specific forecasts • high accuracy of 1970 Forecasts:64% almost fully realised in first 20 yrs - forecasts become goals and then self-fulfilling prophecies • different levels of foresight - holistic, macro, meso and micro - each draws upon, and feeds into, higher and lower levels - i.e. a national foresight system Source: adapted from Ben Martin (2001)

24. History and origins of national foresight 80’s France • Early initiatives, e.g. 1982 National Colloquium on Research and Technology • Ministry of Industry - key technologies exercise in 1994 and 1999 • Ministry for HE & Research - Delphi survey (using Japanese q’s) comparison of views of French experts with German and Japanese • Other lower-level foresight exercises e.g. at regional level Source: adapted from Ben Martin (2001)

25. History and origins of national foresight Late 80’s Netherlands • Foresight exercises by Ministry of Economic Affairs • Consultations in 3 areas and analysis • Strategic conference with stakeholders to test results, create consensus & commitment, then follow-up (e.g. pilot project, new institute). • Repeated every 2 years • Time-consuming especially to involve SMEs but results valuable to participants (75%) and many implemented (60%) • Follow-up exercises by Ministries of Education & Science and Agriculture Source: adapted from Ben Martin (2001

26. History and origins of national foresight Early 90’s Germany • ISI and BMFT Projektträeger - list of 100 emerging technologies • 30-Year Delphi Survey - used Japanese q’s - comparison with Japanese results - similar realisation times but differ over importance & constraints (different national systems of innovation). Repeated 5 years later • Länder, industrial sectors (e.g. chemicals), in-house foresight by companies • Reference: Kerstin Cuhls Fraunhofer ISI Source: adapted from Ben Martin (2001)

27. Year Delphi Mixed Panel/scenario 1970s - 30 years in Japan 1989 Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands st 1990 1 German 1991 Critical Technologies USA 1992 New Zealand st 1993 South Korea Technologies at Threshold of 21 Century Germany st 19 94 France 1 UK TF Japan/ Programme Germany Mini Delphi 1995 100 Key Technologies France 1996 Japan – Australia German Foresight Steering Committee Delphi Netherlands st 1 Italy Industry Foresight Chronology of national Foresight/type Source: Georghiou, 2003

28. 1997 ANEP Spain Irel and 1998 Austria Hungary South Africa New Zealand Sweden nd 1999 ITC 2 UK TF Programme Foresight - FUTUR 0 Germany nd Thailand 2 100 Key Technologies (Fr) th 2000 7 Japanese ET2000 (Portugal) Delphi IPTS Futures Project (EU) 2001 Futur 1 Germany T F Programme (Greece) TF Exercise (Czech Republic) rd 2002 3 UK TF Programme eForesee(Cyprus,Estonia,Malta) nd 2 Swedish TF Programme th 2003 8 Japanese Euforia (EU) Foretech (Bulgaria, Romania) Delphi Chronology of national Foresight/type Source: Georghiou, 2003

31. Overview of National Foresight • US origins: defence-related, forecasting – emphasis on institution-building with setting up of a range of institutes • Length, depth and impact of Japanese exercise both in terms of accuracy but also policy learning in France and Germany primarily and beyond • Social-cultural and economic aspects emerge as key factors • Gradual shift towards panel/scenario methods although Delphi popular in more advanced economies • Major proliferation of foresight activity in 1990s, especially in Europe and East Asia • Sectoral and thematic focus in transition economies but within general efforts to wire up innovation system framework.

32. Foresight in the Private sector • Much pioneering work done in the USA in 1950s and 1960s by think tanks (e.g. RAND) and large companies (e.g. Honeywell) • Forecasters criticised for failing to anticipate the 1973 oil crisis (although there was one notable exception) • Many large firms continued to use some of the methods, particularly scenarios • Recent major upsurge of interest, mirroring increased popularity in the public sector Georghiou, 2003

33. Private sector Rationale • Highly dynamic competitive environment with continuous pressure to engage in RTDI activities. • Corporate foresight grounded in two motives: • Reactive: in response to companies’ business operation demands a long-term orientation (as in industries with long product cycles), or • Proactive: to better cope with uncertainties in the business environment in general. www.cordis.lu/foresight/working.htm

34. Why corporate foresight? • As an early warning system in fast-changing sectors such as consumer goods and ICT) in order to identify future threats and opportunities for their businesses. • To prepare for possible „wild card“-events and sudden shocks (like 9/11) in the political, economic and social sphere • To better understand the social/cultural context of use of technology • To build up knowledge both about emerging technologies and their future users in technology-intensive sectors (Philips, Ericsson, IBM, Siemens) • to open up the company to the outside world and to find starting points for innovation transfer, co-operation and best practices. • To provide important background information about the future conditions and contexts in which the company will have to operate.

35. Why corporate foresight ? Foresight analyses of the business environment often serve as the starting point for the development of a corresponding corporate strategy and to better embed corporate strategy in the socio-economic context. • Anticipatory intelligence (early warning) • Direction-setting (corporate strategy) • Determining priorities (to guide R&D funding decisions) • Strategy formulation • Innovation catalysing (stimulating innovation processes between partners) www.cordis.lu/foresight/working.htm

36. Types of corporate foresight activity www.cordis.lu/foresight/working.htm

37. Thematic focus • Technology trends • Market trends + following aspects for those operating in sectors featuring social embeddedness • Social • Political • Regional www.cordis.lu/foresight/working.htm

38. Publication analyses Patent analyses Benchmarking analyses Market analyses, trend analyses Database research Company’s own, delimited Delphi survey Technology Calendars and roadmaps Creativity techniques brainstorming, intuitive thinking) Scenario techniques Competitive technology intelligence (monitoring) Trend extrapolation Systems dynamics simulation Multilinear modelling Internal innovation or future workshops Systematic questioning of customers Risk analysis/ Cost analysis Common corporate foresight toolsQualitative (interactive, person-oriented) rather than quantitative

39. Four Generations of Foresight Source: adapted fromGeorghiou, 2003

40. Evolving Rationales for Foresight • Decision-taking about strategic, long-term policies in the area of research, technology and innovation is becoming more and more complex, with science and technology (i.e. scientific and technological innovation) being both a major driver of and strongly driven by social change and economic development. • Innovation takes place at many levels : company, sectoral, city, regional, national, transnational, international systems. Knowledge is distributed among players at different levels. The emerging foresight challenge is to create: • the most effective ways of capturing existing knowledge and generating new knowledge and learning • for tackling the complexity and dynamics of the globalising economy • both in terms of long-term perspectives and challenges and • present-day decisions to construct a better future.

41. Public sector Private Sector General objective Anticipation of future developments in science, technology, economy, politics and society Specific objective Generating ideas and visions for technology and innovation Identifying and prioritising related policy measures Identification of opportunities/risks in markets, technologies, and the business environment Identifying strategic options Major actors Governmental bodies Expert communities NGOs Strategic planning units Research and Technology Corporate think tanks Time scope 5-20 years 2-15 years Duration of typical projects 1 to 3 years (periodically repeated) 3 months to 1 year (periodically repeated) Common methods Delphi Studies Expert Interviews Technology Monitoring & Scanning Analysis of patents/licenses Scenarios (and others) Public/private sector rationales Source: Keenan

42. Topics for assignments • Are there limits to convergence of public/private rationales for foresight - define them. • Drawing on public/private rationales, outline emerging rationales of regional and/ or transnational foresight. • In distinguishing between the terms foresight, future studies, forecasting and la prospective, identify the points of overlap and divergence and how these impact on foresight practice. • “No tool should serve as a substitute for reflection or a check on freedom of choice” Discuss.

43. Individual assignments and group presentations • Please start thinking about your individual assignments – you can choose from the topics at the end of each lecture and you can also choose your own topic in consultation with me or Gordon. • Please also start thinking about group powerpoint presentations – you can address any topic but make it interesting and creative and confirm it with me. • Please choose a different theme for your group presentation from your individual assignment topic

44. Topics for Individual assignments Topics that can be addressed apart from set questions at the end of lecture: • Evaluation or impact assessment of a major foresight activity • Effective engagement /outreach to policy-makers and society • Emerging themes in foresight like ethical issues, systemic and/or adaptive foresight, Higher Education or university foresight, regional foresight, • Emerging tools: disruption scenarios, success scenarios, on-line approaches and horizon scanning.

45. References • http://forera.jrc.es/fta/intro.html • http://www.efmn.info • http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/home.htm • http://www.eranet-forsociety.net/ForSociety • http://www.costa22.org/ • http://forlearn.jrc.es/index.htm • http://www.unido.org/doc/12296 • http://www.futurreg.net/