Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:

Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology

Analysis (FTA): Impacts on policy and decision making

28th- 29th September 2006

Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology

Analysis (FTA): Impacts on policy and decision making

28th- 29th September 2006Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:

Steps towards the Development of a Framework conceptualising the Dynamics of ‘Foresight Systems’

Effie Amanatidou1, Ken Guy2

1University of Manchester/OPTIMA, PhD researcher – ATLANTIS, Director STP Unit2 Wise Guys Ltd., Director

Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:Steps Steps ttowards owards tthe Development he Development oof f a Framework a Framework cconceptualising the Dynamics of ‘Foresight Systems’onceptualising the Dynamics of ‘Foresight Systems’Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts:Steps Steps ttowards owards tthe Development he Development oof f a Framework a Framework cconceptualising the Dynamics of ‘Foresight Systems’onceptualising the Dynamics of ‘Foresight Systems’

Presentation Contents

Interpretation of Foresight impacts•Conceptual Framework of emerging societies•Contribution of Foresight

Developing an Impact Assessment Framework•Objectives Hierarchy•Approach for developing an IAF - Foresight system•Approach for developing an IAF - Wider Environment•The Logic Model

Conclusions

Research Problem and Purpose Statement


Research Problem & Purpose Statement

Lack of common impact assessment framework for foresight exercises irrespective of case - specific aims, objectives, levels and focus of implementation

• Need for a ‘higher level’ of reference•‘Lisbon’ agenda and more participatory governance

Need for a common impact assessment framework for good practices, coordination and benchmarking

Purpose Statement•develop an impact assessment framework as a tool with which to examine the impact of foresight exercises in developing a more participatory ‘knowledge society’, thus enabling the assessment of foresight according to criteria common across different countries or regions.

Socialmove.


Activeparticipation

Socialtrust

Actorsallign

Dealing withuncertainty

Socialchange

Tech.change

Net-working

Socialcapital

Skills-compet.

Serviices

KbasedIndus.

Intangibles

Dominant role of

knowledge

Ways Kmediated

ICTs

Innovation-basedgrowth

Informed publics

Coping with risk society

Knowledgecreation,

absorptionlearning

Conditionfactor

K-basedinput

economy

Fact-driver

Conceptual Framework for the Emerging Societies


Contribution of Foresight

Activeparticipation

Socialtrust

Actorsallign

Dealing withUncertainty

Socialchange

Tech.change

Net-working

Socialcapital

Skills-compet

Serviices

KbasedIndus

Intangibles

Dominant role of

knowledge

Ways Kmediated

ICT

Innovation-basedgrowth

Informed publics

Socialmove.

Coping with risk society

Knowledgecreation,

absorptionlearning

Fact-driver

Conditionfactor

K-basedinput

economy

Higher Level Goals

Higher Level Goals:CR: Coping with the ‘risk society’KS: Enhancing the ‘knowledge society’


Objectives Hierarchy for Foresight exercises

Related Preconditions

Specific Skills Competences

Technological and Social change

(Social) Trust

Lower Level Goals

Lower Level Goals:AA: Aligning actorsN: Facilitating networkingSC: Increasing levels of social capital

Intermediate Goals

Intermediate Goals:IP: Creating informed publicsDU: Dealing with uncertaintyAP: Promoting active participationINNO: Supporting innovation-based growthCDA: Increasing knowledge creation, diffusion and absorption

IP DU INNO CDA

KS

AA N SC

AP

CR

NAA

IP

CDA

DU

AP

SC


Approach for developing the Impact Assessment Framework – Foresight System

Actors

Pro

cesses

Inputs

Ob

jectives

Principles/ criteria

Principles / criteria

Principle/ criteria


Principles / criteria related to actors:Non-fragmented institutionsMutual interests – common goalsInterdependence

Principles / criteria related to processes:managing of expectationsopennesstransparencyinclusiveness - early public engagementmedia coverage, promotion

Principles / criteria related to objectives:Clear, non-divergent objectivesWell grounded logic of interventionClear focus

Principles / criteria related to inputs / outputs: quality relevance timing

(based on the cases of UK, Sweden and Malta)


Approach for developing the Impact Assessment Framework – Wider Environment

Actors

Pro

cesses

Inputs

Ob

jectives

Institutional settingsActors’ configuration

- communication

Governance Policy-making culture

Socio-cultural context

Structure of innovation process – advance-

ment of KS

Changing political circumstancesInterested customers with absorptive capacities Engage those who make policy, have ability to take action

Fragmentation in policy system Degree of development of planning processes and consultationDegree of party political divideTiming and level of commitment

Society in favour of change / innovationPerception of other actors’ roles, and interests Degree of divisiveness and individuality in the societyGeneration gap

Degree of inter-institutional communication and collaborationDegree of inter-disciplinary collaboration Degree of public-private sector divide

(based on the cases of UK, Sweden and Malta)

NAA


Impact Assessment Framework - Foresight System

Actors

Pro

cesses

Inputs

Ob

jectives


Principles / criteria

Principle/ criteria


Principles / criteria related to actors:•Inter-institutional communication and collaboration•Mutual interests •Low dependence

Principles / criteria related to processes:•inclusiveness •flexibility•Sustainability of networks created

Principles / criteria related to objectives:•Goals alignment

Principles / criteria related to inputs / outputs:compatibility / complementary areas of expertise

(specifically for impacts related to networking and actors’ alignment)


Impact Assessment Framework – Wider Environment

Actors

Pro

cesses

Inputs

Ob

jectives

Institutional settingsActors’ configuration

- communication

Governance Policy-making culture


Structure of innovation process – advance-

ment of KS

•Degree of inter-institutional communication and collaboration•Low dependencies •Goals alignment

•The degree the government and regulatory contexts promotes networking

•Trust•Perceptions alignment•Peoples individual characteristics •Social context

Alignment of •solution with funder gover/nce•solutions and current trends •players with other players•compet. and collab. techn.

(specifically for impacts related to networking and actors’ alignment)


The Logic Model (incorporating Objectives Hierarchy-Foresight System-Wider Environment)

IP DU INNO CDA

KS

AA N SC

AP

CRUpper System Upper System GoalsGoals

Strategic Strategic Goals/ImpactsGoals/Impacts

Lower level Lower level Goals/ImpactsGoals/Impacts

Outcomes immediate impacts

Foresight activities

Inputs

New combinations stakeholders

Visions for the future

Changes of mindsets

Multi-disciplinary research

……

Scoping Appointment of experts

Commission studies, workshops

Communication of findings

Funding, Personnel, Past results, Data, Experts, etc.

Foresight System internal criteria related to:

Actors

Processes

Objectives

Inputs/ Outputs

Wider environment external factors related to:

Institutional settings, Actors’ configuration – communication

Governance / Policy-making culture


Structure of innovation process – advancement of KS


Conclusions•It is possible to assess foresight exercises in terms of their contribution to more participatory ‘knowledge societies’.•In doing this it is important to understand how foresight influences specific impact areas.•This in turn presupposes understanding of the dynamics of foresight systems and their interaction with the wider environment.•It is possible to build models that help identify internal criteria and external factors to understand how a foresight system works and how it should work.•Each impact area should also be studied separately in order not to miss additional area-specific internal criteria and external factors that have to be considered.•The impact assessment framework can then be built according to the Logic Model approach.

Documents

Interpreting Foresight Process Impacts: