ITSAFE_PROJECT_INTEGRATING_TECHNOLOGICAL

ITSAFE PROJECT OVERVIEW REPORT
ITSAFE PROJECT
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL
ASPECTS OF FORESIGHT IN EUROPE
FINAL REPORT
PROPOSAL NO STPA-2001-00010
JUNE 2003
JOYCE TAIT
ROBIN WILLIAMS
We would also like to thank Marcus Redley
for organising and managing this project
and Eileen Mothersole for secretarial support
SUPRA, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, HIGH SCHOOL YARDS, EDINBURGH EH1 1LZ

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RESEARCH
Commissioner : Philippe Busquin
Directorate-General for Research
Director General: Achilleas Mitsos
The Directorate-General for Research initiates, develops and follows the Commission’s political initiatives for
the realisation of the European Research Area. It conceives and implements the necessary Community
actions, in particular the Framework Programmes in terms of research and technological development. It
also contributes to the implementation of the “Lisbon Strategy” regarding employment, competitiveness at
international level, the economic reform and the social cohesion within the European Union.
The Directorate “Knowledge-based economy and society” (Directorate K) contributes to the
realisation of the European Research Area in the fields of the social sciences, economic, science and
technology foresight, and the respective analyses. To this end, it monitors and encourages science and
technology foresight activities, conducts the economic analyses necessary for the work of the Directorate-
General, and co-ordinates policy as regards the relevant political, economic, human and social sciences. It
prepares the European reports on science and technology indicators, and it contributes to the development
and implementation of the Framework Programmes in these fields. It monitors the progress made in the
implementation of the Lisbon strategy. It is responsible for encouraging investment in research and
technological innovation. To this end, it develops policies and measures to improve framework conditions for
private investment and the effectiveness of public financing instruments.
The unit K 2 “Science and Technology Foresight; links with the IPTS” contributes to the
development of policies and policy concepts through Foresight analyses and activities. Together with other
Directorates and General Directorates, and specially the IPTS/JRC, the unit develops the co-operation
between Foresight practitioners and users in Europe. In addition, it is responsible for the implementation of
the respective activities in the 5th
and 6th
Research Framework Programme. The Unit was also responsible in
the 5th
FP for the STRATA Action.
STRATA aims to promote dialogue between researchers, policy-makers and other societal actors on general
science, technology and innovation (STI) policy issues of European relevance. This activity supports the
establishment of networks and expert groups to improve the European STI policy development process at
regional, national and international level, as well as interactions with other policy fields. Accompanying
measures to support the achievement of these objectives are part of the STRATA toolkit, too.
Director: Jean-François Marchipont
Head of Unit K2: Paraskevas Caracostas
Scientific Officer : Elie Faroult
Elie.faroult@cec.eu.int
SUPRA NETWORK 1

CONTENTS
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................4
Objectives ....................................................................................................................4
Conduct of the study....................................................................................................4
Structure of this report .................................................................................................4
Composition of research team.....................................................................................5
2. The Evolution of Foresight...............................................................................................6
2.1 Foresight Motivations.................................................................................................6
Increasing attention in Foresight to the social and organisational setting of innovation
.....................................................................................................................................6
Increasing attention to the process of Foresight..........................................................7
2.2 Foresight and changing models of innovation ...........................................................7
Linear model ................................................................................................................8
Interactive models........................................................................................................9
2.3 Realistic models of innovation .................................................................................11
Actor and stakeholder interactions ............................................................................11
The policy context and wider business operating environment .................................12
2.4 Technology-centred Foresight and innovation models............................................16
2.5 Beyond technology-centred Foresight; the emergence of ‘social foresight’ ............16
3. Conception of Foresight and Foresight Methodology....................................................19
3.1 Foresight in the Context of ICT and Life Science Technology Sectors ...................20
3.2 Foresight in the Environmental Context...................................................................23
3.3 Foresight and Regional Development .....................................................................27
4. Evaluating Foresight Processes ....................................................................................29
4.1 Foresight Methodology ............................................................................................29
4.2 Foresight Outcomes and Implementation................................................................30
5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................33
5.1 The Evolution of Foresight.......................................................................................33
5.2 Motivations for Socio-economic/Technological Integration......................................34
ICT and Life Sciences................................................................................................35
The Environment Dimension......................................................................................36
Regional Foresight.....................................................................................................36
The North/South Dimension.......................................................................................37
5.3 Outcomes of Integration in Foresight.......................................................................37
6. Integration Guidelines and Toolkit for Evaluating Foresight Processes ........................41
6.1 Initial structuring phase............................................................................................42
6.2 Roadmaps as a Tool for Evaluating Foresight Processes.......................................43
References ........................................................................................................................51
SUPRA NETWORK 2

Annex 1: Methodological Guidebook
Annex 2: Information and Communication Technologies
Annex 3: Life Sciences
Annex 4: The Environment Dimension
Annex 5: Regional Foresight
Annex 6: North/South Perspective
SUPRA NETWORK 3

1. Introduction
Objectives
The overall objective of the ITSAFE Accompanying Measure was to develop a strategic
analysis of the evolution of Foresight-related initiatives throughout Europe, with a specific
focus on the integration of social, scientific and technological aspects. Foresight is
increasingly being used at regional, national and European levels as a strategic policy and
planning tool, but so far progress in improving the contribution of the social sciences in
this area has been uneven. The ITSAFE project looked at how the social sciences can
provide useful tools for Foresight:
1. in enabling the incorporation of socio-economic considerations into technology-
based Foresight exercises in a manner that clearly adds to their value; and
2. in evaluation of Foresight processes, particularly where there is a socio-economic
component, from the perspectives of
• involvement of multiple stakeholders and also addressing the inter-organisational
relationships between actors from different constituencies within a sector,
• interactions among teams of people from different disciplines or with different
specialisms;
• the quality of innovative thinking and maintaining motivation among diverse
participants,
• social learning processes among such teams.
Conduct of the study
The project has built on recent work carried out by the partners in EC-funded projects and
elsewhere in four main areas where there has already been considerable Foresight-
related activity:
i. Information and Communication Technology
ii. Life Sciences
iii. The Environment Dimension
iv. Regional Development
An additional report gives a ‘North-South’ perspective
We initially brought partners together for preliminary discussions to elaborate a common
framework for the different studies and to develop a common methodological guidebook.
(See Annex 1). A second meeting was held to discuss the above reports when they were
in an advanced stage of development. The final meeting brought together a broader range
of experts in Foresight from academic and policy communities. To support the
development of the papers, a dedicated website was maintained as part of the SUPRA
website.
A ‘State of the Art’ report has been developed for each of the above areas to build a better
understanding of what works and what does not work in Foresight terms, focusing on
socio-economic aspects and their integration with scientific and technological aspects
(see Annexes 2 – 5). The inputs from the report on the ‘North/South Perspective’ (Annex
6) have been incorporated mainly in the commentaries on the other four case studies
(Sections 3.1-3.3) and in the conclusions section.
Structure of this report
This Final Report draws on the conclusions of these reports and also on insights from
recent research conducted by its authors, funded from a range of sources, as cited in the
text. Integrating technological and social aspects of Foresight is proving to be a more
difficult challenge than many policy makers expected. We provide a holistic overview of
SUPRA NETWORK 4

the areas studied and attempt to indicate how more effective integration of technological
and social foresight can be accomplished.
Section 2 summarises our experience of the evolution of Foresight in a range of contexts,
and links this to the aims of the ITSAFE Accompanying Measure and the conclusions of
the case study reports.
Section 3, under the heading of ‘Foresight Models and Methodology’ discusses the
outcomes and implications of the four sectoral reports, including additional points raised
by the report on the ‘North/South Perspective’.
Section 4 discusses the evaluation of Foresight processes and their evolution, drawing on
insights from the sector reports (Annexes 2 – 5).
Section 5 presents our conclusions and recommendations from the ITSAFE project as a
whole.
Finally Section 6 consists of our Integration Guidelines and Toolkit for Evaluating
Foresight Processes.
Composition of research team
Joyce Tait, Scottish Universities Policy Research and Advice Network (SUPRA), Institute
for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh
Robin Williams, Research Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for the Study of Science,
Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Marcus Redley, Research Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for the Study of Science,
Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Barend van der Meulen, Centre for Studies of Science, Technology and Society,
University of Twente, Netherlands
Jan Van De Fliert, Centre for Studies of Science, Technology and Society, University of
Twente, Netherlands
Thierry Gaudin, Prospective 2100, France
Thomas Reiss, Fraunhofer-Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI),
Department Innovations in Biotechnology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Mikel Gomez Uranga, Applied Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and
Business Administration, University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Spain
Marion Diez, Applied Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Spain
Goio Etxebarria, Applied Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Business
Yolanda Jubeto, Applied Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Business
Dimosthenes Agrafiotis, National School of Public Health, The Department of Sociology,
Athens
Oliver Strobel, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Institut fur Systemtechnik und
Innovationsforschung (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany
SUPRA NETWORK 5

2. The Evolution of Foresight
2.1 Foresight Motivations
Foresight first rose to prominence in the 1980s when it was used primarily to predict
potentially successful trajectories for science, technology and innovation, and hence to
improve national, sectoral or company competitive advantage. The perceived success of
these initiatives in turn created pressure on those countries that had not implemented
Foresight to take part in the ‘political competition’ (Life Sciences Report Annex 3).
Its early goals were thus to inform decisions on the balance and direction of publicly
funded science and technology, for example through strategic assessment of the
opportunities and likely competitive challenges in particular key fields. The focus was
upon tracking medium and long-term scientific and technological developments and their
implications for research funding and the development and commercial exploitation of
technological capabilities (Irvine and Martin, 1984; Martin and Irvine, 1989; Georghiou,
1996).
Increasing attention in Foresight to the social and organisational setting of innovation
Subsequent changes in Foresight aims were partly driven by the failure of some science
and technology policies that had neglected the socio-economic dimension, and were
stimulated also by changes in the character of complex modern technologies. The
salience of socio-economic issues reflects the greater complexity of the process of
innovation and its organisational setting. Thus innovation is often dispersed across a
network of knowledge and economic actors, encompassing a greater diversity of players
with complementary knowledge and economic contributions, while the pervasive uptake
and far reaching social implications of innovation in, for example, information and
communications technologies (ICT) and life sciences gives the final consumer/citizen a
potentially key role.
One result, at least for ICT, has been a growing recognition of the role of common
standards, market and technology supply issues in successful innovation, particularly
regarding the importance (and difficulty) of anticipating user responses to new products.
Furthermore the goals of Foresight have been broadened, in some instances in response
to concerns about the socio-economic implications of new technologies, to include the
identification of possible undesirable impacts and areas that should not be supported by
public science and technology policies (see Annex 3, Life Sciences).
The Environment Dimensions Report (Annex 4) points to a series of environmental risks
that have given rise to public concerns about trends in technological innovation, as well as
increasing concerns about the known health and environmental hazards of toxic materials,
and potential climate changes particularly related to the combustion of hydrocarbons. The
report also flags the new risks linked to the use of products from genetic engineering (the
creation of new animal and plant forms) and the consumption of foodstuffs arising from
them.
This list of concerns is supplemented by lack of trust by some sections of the public and
by NGOs in regulatory and decision making procedures that are seen as inadequate,
reinforced by a lower tolerance of uncertainty in outcomes and more frequent recourse to
the Precautionary Principle (which can be seen as equivalent to ‘risk Foresight’)1
.
1
In this context, the report on the North/South Dimension (Annex 6) notes that the public
perception of life science applications in the agro-food sector is negative throughout much of
Europe, but for different reasons: the destruction of traditional patterns of taste and food in the
South, and the sustainability and social control of risks in the North. Also, agriculture in the South is
different from the North for reasons of climate, land use, geography, industrialisation, size and
importance for the economy, traditions, landscape, aesthetical patterns, time scales, and continuity
of history and civilisation. Demographic patterns are also related to economic conditions, family
SUPRA NETWORK 6

Increasing attention to the process of Foresight
Another important role of Foresight in some studies has been to encourage networking
and new partnerships among various stakeholders, in particular from science and industry
(e.g. Georghiou, 1996; Menrad et al., 1999). Other bodies, for example forward-looking
firms, may be engaged in Foresight like activities. The Life Sciences Report (Annex 3)
describes the case of a pharmaceutical company which undertook Foresight activities on
the future of health care systems (Jaeckel et al., 1995). This project, beyond the usual
company goals of creating proprietary information independently from publicly funded
policy oriented Foresight, aimed to increase the prestige and reputation of the company
by associating it with what was seen at the time as a ‘leading edge’ approach and giving
the company a first mover advantage2
.
In some cases, regional tensions and divergences within national boundaries can lead to
engagement in economic and technological Foresight in the service of strategic political
and economic objectives. Other Foresight initiatives will embody different balances of
social values and will explore perspectives on social and environmental change in a less
instrumental way. Foresight practices thus reflect the tensions within the societies whose
potentials they seek to explore and portray.
Until very recently, foresight tools and techniques have been extensively used at a
national level but less so at a regional level. However, regional foresight is now widely
regarded as a new tool that can be applied to a huge range of issues, scientific, industrial,
demographic, social and territorial. Regional Foresight thus arises from a convergence of
trends underlying recent developments in the fields of policy design, strategic planning
and future studies. They bring together key regional agents and various sources of
knowledge in order to develop strategic visions and anticipatory intelligence at the
regional level.
An innovative aspect of the ITSAFE project has been its specific consideration of the
distinctiveness of Foresight studies as conducted in specific groups of regions. Our study
pointed to some differences between Foresight in Northern and Southern Europe3
. The
North/South dichotomy also reflects an obsolete conception of space, particularly if we
consider that today space is related to the speed of movement of information, objects and
human beings. In addition, we can often find islands of ‘’the south’ in the ‘north’ and vice
versa.
2.2 Foresight and changing models of innovation
A major concern of science and technology studies from its earliest stages has been to
criticise prevalent conceptions of innovation processes adopted by policy makers based
upon the linear model of innovation. This assumes the source of innovation to be
advances in fundamental technical knowledge generated by public sector research which
is then transferred in a broadly linear manner to industry where it yields new products that
are diffused through the market place. Evidence that this model does not fit well with
actual practice is usually taken by policy makers to imply that practice, not the model
itself, is at fault and that new policy initiatives are needed to facilitate its implementation.
Indeed, the underlying rationale of many Foresight initiatives could be construed as
facilitation of the operation of a linear model of innovation. The promotion of industry-
structures, gender relations and patterns of intergenerational relations, i.e. they are culturally
determined.
2
However, such claims should be treated with scepticism, as most multinational pharmaceutical
companies were, by then, undertaking Foresight-related exercises, even if not under that name.
3
However, as the report in Annex 6 points out, although the term ‘north/south’ dimension provides
a useful source of images and metaphors, it can also be misleading and lead to over-simplification.
The stereotypes are that the ‘north’ has wealth and knowledge and the ‘south’ has the problems
and the free time, but these descriptions could also be applied at a global level.
SUPRA NETWORK 7

academic links, special support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the
encouragement of more interdisciplinary approaches in research and development
processes and engagement in Foresight itself, are all seen from this perspective as
means to facilitate the operation of this linear model (Tait and Williams, 1999).
Analysts in developing more sophisticated understandings over recent years of the
complexity of relationships between technology and society, have articulated different
models of the innovation process.
Linear model
Early accounts of Foresight (see Figure 1) were underpinned by the presumption that
technological change followed linear development trajectories that could be predictively
modelled and tracked and which required particular policy and social arrangements to
deliver the expected impacts. Foresight was conceived from this perspective in terms of
linear forecasting – predicting and promoting unfolding technology trajectories (Cronberg,
1992; Caracostas & Muldur, 1998).
Such simplistic linear models have been largely abandoned because of their evident
empirical flaws as well as the failure of many policies based upon them, although they still
have currency in popular and some policy discourses.
Figure 1. Linear Model of Innovation
Basic/strategic research
(in universities and government
research laboratories)
Applied research
(in universities, government
research laboratories and
companies)
Development
(carried out mainly by companies;
or by universities, government and
private laboratories with industry
funding)
Products, processes and
services
(production located in companies)
The market place
SUPRA NETWORK 8

Interactive models
The interactive models of innovation which evolved from the linear model highlight the
interplay between supplier offerings and user responses. Within these we can distinguish
between simple and complex interactive models.
The simple interactive model (Figure 2) is a revised version of the linear model which still
conveys a clear linear sense but which also addresses the importance of market factors
and feedback between ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ players in innovation.
Figure 2. Interactive Model of Innovation
Basic/strategic research
( in universities and government
research laboratories)
Applied research
(in universities, government
research laboratories and
companies)
Development
(carried out mainly by companies;
or by universities, government and
private laboratories with industry
funding)
Products, processes and
services
(production located in companies)
The market place
SUPRA NETWORK 9

The more complex interactive model illustrated in Figure 3 reflects, in addition, the
outcomes of a growing body of empirical studies which demonstrate the complexity of
interactions surrounding technological innovation:
• The unpredictability of innovation outcomes in terms of the success or failure of
particular innovations;
• The unanticipated (desired and undesired) socio-economic outcomes of innovation;
and
• An expanded view of relevant innovation players, including industry as an important
reservoir of technical knowledge in many fields and intermediate and final consumers
as actors in innovation (Russell and Williams 2002).
Figure 3. Complex Interactive Model
Basic/strategic
research
Applied research
Development
Products, processes
and services
The market place
SUPRA NETWORK 10

2.3 Realistic models of innovation
Building upon these emerging, but still simplified interactive models, Tait and Williams
(1999) have developed more sophisticated models based upon specific innovation
contexts. These allow a more realistic account of the complexity of interactions among
actors and stakeholders engaged in innovation processes, and also of the influence of the
operating environment for a business or organisation on its innovation processes,
particularly the policy, regulatory and marketing environments (see Figures 4 and 5)4
. This
approach considers particularly how this operating environment interacts with
actor/stakeholder networks. These networks and interactions are very different in different
industry sectors. The range of relevant policies which influence stakeholders also varies
widely from one sector to another, as illustrated in the examples given below for ICT and
life sciences.
Actor and stakeholder interactions
The central core of Figures 4 and 5 describes the interactions among the major actors
involved in innovation in ICTs and life sciences. The relationships are still recognisably
linear but this model allows for more complex patterns of interaction, reflecting more
accurately the varied relationships among the developers of innovative technology and
also between innovators and their markets. As Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate, the nature of
stakeholder and market interactions is very different in the ICT and life science industry
sectors, requiring different Foresight processes and also different approaches to the
development of innovative products.
The pattern of innovation for ICTs, shown in Figure 4, goes beyond that of the complex
interactive model, reflecting the segmentation of supply between for example core
technologies and components, ICT delivery systems and the ‘multimedia’ applications and
services that run on them (Collinson et al. 1996). There are also marked differences
between segments within the ICT sector, for example the globalised supply of core
technology components in microprocessors, memory chips and operating systems
compared to the extremely dispersed market for the provision of services and content.
Powerful economies of scale that underpinned emergence of the global oligopoly are
countered by factors which underpin the enormous dynamism and turbulence of
innovation including commodification and modularisation of component technologies,
assisted by interoperability standards. This points to a highly chaotic system operating at
different levels and with no clear innovation hierarchy.
In the context of a market that is only weakly regulated, a strategic position is played by
intermediate and final consumers: consumer choice largely determines which of the wide
range of products and services offered on the market place will succeed and which will
fail. Anticipating these choices presents a key challenge for firms wishing to stay in
business (Myervohld, 1999) and it is notable that a large share of the key actors in the
sector change from decade to decade (Campbell-Kelly 2003). This means that SMEs
working in the ICT sector have greater freedom to innovate and to challenge and compete
with the product ranges of large or multinational companies than those in life sciences.
In life sciences (Figure 5) the primary markets for new products are heavily regulated
intermediate markets, the farmers who grow crops and the health services, public and
private, that control the distribution of drugs and medical services. They mediate the
choices of final consumers. For the majority of the markets served by these industries,
members of the public are not legally free to purchase products directly themselves and
until recently they have had little influence on the purchasing decisions of farmers and the
medical profession.
4 This analysis arose from two EC-funded projects in the Fourth Framework Programme, Targeted
Socio-Economic Research, ‘Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture’ (PITA), project no.
PL97/1280, and Social Learning in Multimedia (SLIM) PL 951003 and subsequent discussions on
the development of the policy approach for the SUPRA Network at the University of Edinburgh.
SUPRA NETWORK 11

This simplified market structure, combined with complex and strict regulatory regimes in
the chemical and life science sectors, leads to innovation trajectories for new products
that do conform much more closely to a linear model than most other industry sectors.
Reflecting this, it is common to talk about the development ‘pipeline’ for new drugs and
pesticides.
Markets in the life science sector are therefore more predictable than in other sectors.
There is an established paradigm within which incremental innovation that fits within the
agreed criteria for risk and benefit can take place, with more or less assured success. The
different players (drug companies, scientists, doctors, regulators) are broadly in
agreement about the rules of the game for innovation. It is important to note however that
there are also within-sector differences. For example the medical diagnostics subsector
differs from pharmaceuticals primarily in being less strictly regulated and therefore less
dominated by MNCs. This may allow greater freedom for SMEs in diagnostics to choose
their own innovation pathways.
More recently, the life science industries have begun to see ‘the public’ as stakeholders in
their businesses, largely as a result of consumer demands for a greater voice in the
nature of food production systems and health treatments which are available to them. A
key influence has been concern about potential risks (and the distribution of costs and
benefits) which has impaired both trust in the innovation and regulatory system and
acceptance of the innovations it produces.
The very strict regulation to which these industries are subject also influences the market
for pharmaceutical and health related products. Drugs and pesticides go through a very
lengthy product development process, much of which is spent on testing regimes to
ensure safety to the environment and/or human health. For example, from a regime
testing approximately 200,000 potential pesticides a company will be fortunate to have
one marketable product emerge from the end of the pipeline. Although there is still limited
competition among products, the ratio of successful to unsuccessful products after market
launch is very much greater than, for example, in ICT. The stakes are very high. If a single
drug or pesticide which has survived the rigorous regulatory selection process does not
succeed in the market place, the reason usually being unforeseen side effects rather than
consumer preferences, the continued survival of the multinational company that
developed it can be at risk.
Because of the lengthy and expensive product development process, few SMEs in the life
science sector can afford to take a product through to market launch without the
involvement of a multinational company. The aim of many SMEs in the agro-biotechnology
and pharmaceuticals sectors is indeed to reap the profits of a take-over of their company
by a multinational. This has a major impact on innovation processes in the life sciences
and it gives a controlling influence to the product development strategies of the
multinational companies, constraining the innovative capabilities of SMEs (Chataway and
Tait, 1993).
Foresight initiatives conducted without understanding of factors such as these are likely to
be misleading.
The policy context and wider business operating environment
Foresight oriented policies that are likely to have an impact on technological innovation
range from legally enforceable regulatory instruments and fiscal policies, through
standards and voluntary codes of conduct, including government Foresight initiatives
themselves, each being directed selectively to different targets in the actor/stakeholder
network.
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, regulatory and policy influences in the business environment
are a less important feature of innovation processes in ICT than in life sciences. In ICT,
product and process regulation are largely irrelevant. However, sector regulation (often
voluntary in nature) and standard setting, which constrain and guide the types of
SUPRA NETWORK 12

innovation that can be successfully marketed, are often major drivers of innovation.
Indeed, standard setting in this sector can be seen as providing a similar function to
regulation in life sciences, in that it provides a relatively sure market for products of a
particular type and discriminates against others. It thus favours some companies over
others and guides the innovation trajectory in particular directions. Regulation is, however,
an important direct influence in some parts of the system and there is little integration
between regulatory regimes, for example for broadcasting, telecommunications, privacy
and content.
To illustrate the greater complexity of the policy and regulatory environment for the life
sciences we have identified several criteria that are particularly relevant to classifying
policies and their impacts on the behaviour of different sets of actors:
• whether policies or regulations enable or constrain innovation in product and process
development (i.e. whether they are ‘carrots’ or ‘sticks’);5
• whether a policy or regulation applies indiscriminately across all products and
processes for an industry sector, or whether it discriminates among different types of
development (e.g. to encourage ‘clean technology’ innovations).
Figure 5 seeks to capture these and illustrate the complex array of interactions between
actors and policies in the life science sector.
We consider the interactions between overlapping policy regimes. In some cases,
government and other policy initiatives (Foresight, science policy, support for technology
transfer, fiscal policy) are counteracted by other policies operating at other points in the
actor network. For example, European CAP reforms are likely to lead to a less prosperous
farming community, undermining the market for innovative, and generally more expensive
technology; likewise, new and more discriminating procurement policies for health
services are eroding previously lucrative and relatively certain markets for
pharmaceuticals. Science, innovation and Foresight policies, designed to encourage
innovation in these sectors, have often failed to consider such factors given that
governments have not yet achieved their goal of ‘joined up’ thinking in relation to policy
and intervention,.
Figure 5 also shows that regulations have an impact on both MNCs and SMEs, acting in a
manner that discriminates among products and processes, favouring those that are more
effective or safer in some respect, and having a constraining influence on both types of
company. However for MNCs, regulation can also be enabling, in that it favours certain
types of product and also acts as a barrier to entry for SMEs, protecting the competitive
position of the multinationals. The relationship between policies and their outcomes is
thus complex, and we need to consider the possibility that policies may lead to
unanticipated and undesirable outcomes.
5
A particular policy or regulation may be classed as either constraining or enabling depending on
how it is perceived and implemented by relevant actors
SUPRA NETWORK 13

Figure 4. The Innovation Environment for Information and Communication Technologies
Universities,
PSREs
Multimedia delivery
systems
Core ICTs
Major lines of influence/ interaction
in product R&D
LittleRegulation
Final customers
Multimedia products and
services
Different
regulatory
regimes
Content
Privacy etc
Standards
SUPRA NETWORK 14

Figure 5. The Innovation Environment for Life Sciences
Policies applied across
all products and processes
Universities,
PSREs
Spin-off
Companies/
SMEs
Large
companies/
MNCs
Major lines of
influence/interaction
Science policies
Finance and
infrastructure policy
Product and
process regulations
Support for
technology transfer
Finance and
infrastructure policy
Public/
Ultimate
consumers
CONSTRAINING POLICIES
ENABLING POLICIES
Policies selective among
products and processes
Foresight
Product and
process regulations
Procurement
policies
Farming
Systems
Markets
Health
Services
Markets
Inward investment
and clusters
Fiscal policy
CAP reforms
SUPRA NETWORK 15

2.4 Technology-centred Foresight and innovation models
The focus in all the above models is on the evolution and dynamics of technological
innovation and the associated underlying science. They recognise that technologies are
subject to complex contingencies in their development and use, characterised for example
by interactions between (the serendipity and uneven dynamism of) technology supply and
(the serendipity and uneven dynamism of) the appropriation of these offerings (Collinson
et al. 1996; Williams, Stewart and Slack 2000). They also recognise the major influences
exerted on innovation trajectories by policy and marketing environments (Tait and
Chataway, 2003), but they do retain a central focus upon science, technology and
industry.
The realistic model we have advanced attempts to link the science and technology axis
more effectively with its policy, public and market environments, and highlights the
differences between industry sectors that are relevant to the conduct of Foresight both
within and for the industries concerned. Although Foresight is no longer seen as
forecasting per se, an important part of government planning for national and EC
approaches to innovation has its primary focus on science and technology, albeit with
increasing emphasis on the need for technology to meet public needs and to be publicly
acceptable.6
Thus, the more sophisticated innovation models can deal with different
understandings of the role and methods of Foresight, the major challenges involved, and
in particular of how the social and technical elements may be integrated (see Section 4).
From the perspective of Foresight, there are some important lessons in the above
analysis for the development of science, technology and regulatory policies designed to
achieve desired societal ends. There is evidence from our research (Tait et al., 2001) that,
at least for the life sciences, policies that are enabling and discriminating are more likely to
achieve their aims, more efficiently, than constraining and indiscriminate policies.
Likewise, as noted above, it is important that policy makers are aware (i) of gaps in the
policy network that may prevent particular policies from being implemented effectively or
from achieving their desired aims, and (ii) of inconsistencies and antagonisms among
policies arising from different policy areas and government departments.
We are still a long way from achieving even a modest level of sophistication in policy
making and implementation and this poses serious limitations on attempts to predict and
to guide outcomes, technical and societal, of innovation. In addition, entirely different
approaches are needed to deal with the second main theme of the ITSAFE project, the
use of Foresight to develop new visions of societal futures and to chart routes to achieving
them, not necessarily technology-led. Both of these issues require new approaches that
do not take some form of technological innovation model as their starting point.
2.5 Beyond technology-centred Foresight; the emergence of ‘social foresight’
As we describe above, traditional foresight efforts have been based (more or less tacitly)
upon a tradition of forecasting and impact assessment that extrapolates from emerging
technical potential. The Life Sciences Report (Annex 3) notes that both science-
technology driven and demand-oriented Foresight assume a linear perspective on the
interrelationships between technology and society.
The shortcomings of such endeavours are apparent when we consider that most of the
key innovations of today were neither conceived by their developers nor recognised by
contemporary commentators as having profound social and technical implications until
they were well on the way to achieving widespread uptake (e.g. the internet, Short
Message Service, fax), whilst others have made little impact despite being heavily
6
Similarly companies engage in strategic planning, an important element of which involves
envisioning future markets and technology options (on a timescale of 15-20 years in the case of the
life sciences, in which the high costs and long timeframes of product approval, and consequent
high risks require a long-term perspective on planning) (Tait and Chataway, 2000).
SUPRA NETWORK 16

promoted and widely heralded for decades (the videophone, videotext). There are
important lessons from hindsight (Dutton 1995, Williams 2000). The technology and
society relationship varies not just between sectors, but also within, in part due to
differences in the form of technology and its insertion into broader socio-technical
systems. In ICTs the increasing resort to modular architectures, aided by interoperability
standards, affords considerable choice to intermediate and final users to select and
combine component technologies to achieve particular goals. The flexibility in
implementation and use of such configurational technologies is markedly greater than
monolithic technological systems.7
The distributed chaotic innovation processes
characteristic of complex modern technologies – particularly configurational technologies
means that attempts at anticipation of technological or social outcomes have been, as
often as not, wholly wide of the mark - particularly where these are narrowly based - for
example from extrapolation from technical potential and projected development
trajectories. Many actors and factors are at play, shaping the evolution of these
innovations and their socio-economic outcomes. These pose deep difficulties in carrying
out classical foresight exercises.
Complementary to the classical Foresight approach, in recent years a more problem- or
demand-oriented concept has emerged. Foresight has become bound up with shaping
social, environmental and technological futures. There have been attempts to include the
social forces shaping and shaped by scientific and technological developments (see
Annex 2, ICT Report). We have also seen the emergence of ‘social foresight’ that takes as
its starting point a set of societal problems (such as aging and demographic change)
rather than technological developments. For example the British government in October
1999 announced the launching of a new Foresight exercise completely reoriented towards
‘social demand’ with emphasis on interactions within society and on assuring the value of
science for society (UK Office of Science and Technology (OST), 1998 a, b, c).
Thus, beyond the level of engagement between science, technology and the social
sciences, Foresight has evolved into a process of charting societally desired future
scenarios and exploring the social and policy processes that will foster their emergence,
sometimes referred to as ‘social Foresight’. As noted in the report on ‘The Environment
Dimension’ (Annex 4), the 1990s saw a significant acceleration in public participation in
national foresight, particularly in Europe. More recent Foresight studies rarely seek to
‘predict’ the future but rather to offer meaningful, plausible and pertinent visions of the
future to permit and encourage societal actors (including scientific and technical experts,
investors, decision makers and citizens) to participate in the development of the future in a
dynamic context of policy exploration, implementation and review.
Treating Foresight as a process of extrapolation from social requirements, in any context
including science and technology, does, however, suffer from some intrinsic problems.
7
Tools refer to ‘stand-alone’ technologies that are generic and flexible that can be used in different
ways by different players, with a consequently wide range of technical and social outcomes.
Systems technologies are complex technologies in which the tight coupling between different
components and their insertion into a monolithic institutional setting, restricts the choices available
to the consumer and other downstream players. Few choices are open to the user other than the
veto power to use or not. The inflexibility of systems technologies means that they seem to
conform to linear models of innovation; this accentuates lock in problems and necessitates long-
term planning and assessment from the earliest stages of development. In contrast contemporary
complex technologies are increasingly taking the form of configurational technologies – insofar as
they are assembled from selections of inter-operating technical components, configured together to
match user requirements and circumstances (Fleck, J. (1988) ‘The development of information-
integration: beyond CIM?’ Edinburgh: Edinburgh PICT Working Paper no 9. Fleck, J. (1988)
Innofusion or diffusation? : the nature of technological development in robotics’ Edinburgh:
Edinburgh PICT Working Paper no 4).
SUPRA NETWORK 17

• We often have only a partial prior understanding of the socio-economic implications of
a new technology
• Current public pre-occupations tend to be projected onto emerging technologies so
that the technology operates as a kind of Rorschach Test for social concerns (as
evidenced by much contemporary discussion of the digital divide, and the potential
social exclusionary effects of ICTs) (Williams 2000)
• Some criteria tend to be given more weight than others, in particular risk avoidance.
Thus the potential risks arising from using a new technology may be given
disproportionate attention and may appear to outweigh the potential benefits, such as
socio-economic benefits8
.
• Issues of trust have become central in this form of Foresight, particularly where the
proponents of a technology are seen as having provided unrealistic and unduly
favourable assessments of the potential outcomes of technologies that are still not
well-understood
• In contexts of uncertainty we seek to extrapolate from analogous settings. Some
narratives may have a major political impact even where there is little evidence to
support the analogy, for example the comparison that has been made between the
risks arising from BSE in cattle, the associated variant Creutzfeld Jacob disease in
humans, and the risks from the use of GM crops in agriculture. Such cases constitute
the ‘metaphorical construction’ of the socio-economic outcomes of a technology, in
which particular visions of how a technology might be used may come to prevail, not
because of their likelihood but because of their wide availability or narrative
compulsion.
8
This points to a more general problem in deciding what constitutes socio-economic benefit and
how this may be assessed; the economistic answer, that the emergence of new markets points to
the fulfilment of social needs, brings us back to a very old discussion about the relationship
between needs and wants.
SUPRA NETWORK 18

3. Conception of Foresight and Foresight Methodology
The reviews of Foresight exercises across different nations and areas highlighted the
diversity of foresight exercises in terms of how foresight was conceived. The earliest
Foresight exercises were largely based on Delphi techniques typically by technical
specialists, address prospects for the development and uptake of emerging technologies.
There has subsequently been a marked diversification of Foresight exercises in terms of
methodologies adopted and also the conception of Foresight.
Thus we now find a wider range of Foresight methods being adopted alongside a
broadening conception of Foresight. These encompass:
• the scope of Foresight (in terms of its being an initiative in technology or social
foresight)
• participation in Foresight (which may revolve around technical specialists, other
experts e.g. from business or policy circles, politicians and lay publics) and
• the approach to Foresight (which may focus narrowly on the identification and
exploitation of emerging technologies, the assessment of innovation pathways and
selection between them in the light of anticipated technical or socio-economic
outcomes, or may be driven by socio-economic problems).
Figure 6 illustrates these components and points to the loose relationship that tends to
emerge in particular exercises between the scope of Foresight, participation in Foresight
and the approach to Foresight. The methodology and/or model of Foresight adopted
should be appropriate to the particular context should be chosen with all three factors in
mind. These issues are fully addressed in Annexes 2-6. Here we summarise the
methodological issues raised in these reports and discuss their relevance to Foresight
processes as a whole.
There are no guarantees – methodological or substantive – of the success of Foresight
endeavours. These kinds of initiative are more helpfully seen as tools and resources for
reflexive analysis. Much more work needs to be done before we can claim to have an
adequate methodology, range of models or knowledge base.
Figure 6. Conception of Foresight
Approach
technology exploitation,
technology assessment/choice,
problem driven
Foresight participants
technical specialist,
policy, industry
lay publics
Scope of foresight
technology foresight,
social foresight
SUPRA NETWORK 19

3.1 Foresight in the Context of ICT and Life Science Technology Sectors
This section covers particularly the two technology-based sectors which are the subject of
the reports in Annexes 2 and 3. In these cases, the focus is on specific technologies, the
promotion of innovation in these sectors and their socio-economic implications (beneficial
and disadvantageous). Even where attention is paid to the social dimensions, this is often
secondary to the attractiveness and promotion of the technology and political objectives
such as the ‘information society’.
There are marked differences between these sectors which shape the character of
Foresight exercises. The conception of the digital revolution is characterised by
overwhelmingly favourable visions of impending technological advances and attendant
social and economic benefits that will accrue. This is of course a domain in which there
are well established trajectories of development and uptake of technology. Contemporary
issues relate to how the evolution of ICTs may be extended into specific domains and how
patterns and challenges may be changing in the face of medium term trends , notably the
growth of mobile and wireless applications, and the increasingly pervasive reach of ICT
devices and applications (as evinced by terms such as the ubiquitous computer, ambient
computing).
Though there are areas of concern (for example surrounding the effectiveness of
standardisation efforts; problems of identifying ‘killer’ applications in a context of
uncertainty regarding user requirements; anxieties around exclusion) these are not seen
as representing profound challenges.
The defining features in life sciences, on the other hand, are:
• The role of life sciences as a set of enabling concepts. methods and technologies with
implications for a wide range of other industry sectors, giving the life sciences a
potentially very wide range of impacts
• The very close links between basic research and industrial utilisation but the rather
lengthy period before practical applications become apparent to potential consumers
• The knowledge base of the life sciences is, more than many other sectors, in the
public sphere
• The concern of the life sciences with the understanding and modification of life raises
many ethical issues
• Public acceptance of technology in life sciences has developed differently in different
sectors, most notably between agro-food and pharmaceutical applications.
Regardless of the degree of integration involved, the methods most commonly used in
both sectors have been Delphi techniques and scenario planning. As the ICT Report
(Annex 2) notes, scenarios provide ample opportunities, through their story telling
features, to integrate technological and socio-economic dimensions of future
developments, though, as we discuss below, there are questions as to what extent socio
economic dimensions are a central part of the scenario elements, or are used only to flesh
out projections based on emerging technological capabilities.
Variations in the methods used in Delphi approaches (Life Sciences Report, Annex 3)
relate to:
• The range of experts involved in the study (scientists and industrialists only, or
bringing in the policy communities, consumer groups and NGOs)
• The level and range of expertise involved (second level experts are often able to give
more reliable assessments of possible future developments)
• The incorporation of comparative approaches, across different countries, or comparing
technical expert assessments with those of ‘users’ of various types.
SUPRA NETWORK 20

Beyond scenarios and Delphi methods, other methods based on eliciting expert
knowledge to develop long term strategies have included: expert panels (particularly in
UK, Irish and German life science studies), consultations, futures workshops, focus
groups, quality circles, virtual workspaces on the Internet, and open space conferences.
The Life Sciences Report (Annex 3) noted that quantitative methods such as simulation
modelling, trend extrapolation, cross impact analysis and system dynamics are rarely
used in public life sciences-related foresight projects, although they probably are used in
commercial Foresight processes conducted within companies. Relevance trees can also
be used to analyse situations with various levels of complexity where each successive
lower level involves finer distinctions or subdivisions, producing an output that is similar to
an organisational chart presenting information in a hierarchical structure.
Comparing the purposes of foresight with the methods adopted, a pattern seems to
emerge whereby the Delphi approach with its variation in terms of expert selection,
definition of statements and institutional separation is used as a very versatile tool, not
only informing decision-making on scientific and technological opportunities, but also
providing information on the future needs of society. Further, a number of foresight studies
point to the important role of the Delphi process in initiating networking and partnerships,
i.e. as part of deliberation-support. Other foresight methods used to elicit knowledge and
to identify future opportunities for science and technology are more open and
experimental and do not rely on established best practise.
Among the earliest Foresight studies, Foresight in the UK was structured around sixteen
technology sectors and focused almost entirely on science and technology and their
promotion in the interests of national competitiveness. However, many of the reports from
this exercise recommend greater efforts to integrate public and socio-economic concerns
more effectively into future Foresight activities.
As described in the ICT Report (Annex 2) the UK round of Foresight that began in 1999
leaned more towards a social classification of Foresight issues, focusing on areas of
application such as working practice, healthcare/medicine, transport, internet use/e-
commerce, public administration, leisure and entertainment. Likewise, the Health Care
Panel in the second round of Foresight in the UK included experts from science, industry,
politics, patient groups, consumer associations, insurance companies, physicians and
media. Nevertheless, even in this second round with its expanded remit, the studies
themselves were mainly concerned with the technologies and their public and market
acceptance. Public and societal perspectives generally did not drive the technological
perspectives.
Thus, it has generally been the case that, even although most of the Foresight examples
considered in the ITSAFE Reports did make some attempt to integrate socio-economic
and technological aspects of Foresight, the level and quality of integration was generally
weak.
Improved integration of socio-economic and technical issues is often stimulated by
perceived problems in implementation or marketing of new technology, usually because of
some problem of public acceptance, prominent recent examples being the setting up of
mobile phone masts and the introduction of GM crops. Other examples from the ICT area
where technology is seen as a cause of social and other problems are (see Annex 2):
• Social cohesion, isolation and exclusion
• Changing social norms and anti-social behaviour
• Criminal and terrorist activities using ICT
• Identity manipulation and self management within communications
• Shifting power relations and politics
• Cognitive consequences, mental health, addiction
SUPRA NETWORK 21

• ICT and privacy
However, increasingly the stimulus can also come form a perceived set of societal
problems for which technology is expected to provide at least partial solutions. We see
this, for example, in the search for technical fixes to many of the above problems (e.g.
exclusion or privacy concerns) and more generally in delivering radical improvements in:
• education and life long learning
• new organisation of work patterns
• e-business, e-commerce and entertainment
Integration of social and technological developments can be seen as less a matter of
specific methodology or including the right stakeholders than of giving attention to both the
socio-economic and technical dimensions of the development of ICT. In the ICT report
(Annex 2) both Delphi methods and scenario planning provided examples of good
integration of social aspects in the foresight process, including the ICM Panel in the UK,
the Austrian Delphi, the Ambient Intelligence Scenario and the Micro Optics Scenario. The
involvement of stakeholders was not seen as crucial and the availability of expertise could
be more important. In addition, close linkage of a Foresight process to policy making could
inhibit the scope for a full assessment of the social and technological dimensions, as
suggested by the Dutch cases described in that report.
A range of methods for integrating social issues in technology Foresight is described in
the ICT report, including:
• introduction of a topic on meta-trends in the socio-economic domain in technological
surveys
• using insights into the dynamics of technology and its patterns and regularities to
assess different possibilities how technology is embedded in society
• developing different trajectories for technologies
• distinguishing different application areas for technology and assessing the
technological requirements for each of the applications
• identification of socio-economic needs and subsequently the formulation of
technological responses to these needs
• explicit identification of technological and societal driving forces in the preparation
phase of scenarios
• structuring the exercise (partly) according to socio-economic thematic fields instead of
technological fields
• inclusion in the foresight process of activities that predict socio-cultural developments,
e.g. through a Delphi study with items on socio-cultural developments, or scenarios
• combining technical developments with scenarios made by experts in other domains
• developing and discussing scenarios with experts with technological and social-
political expertise
• explicit analysis of results from socio-economic viewpoints
• explicit analysis of the integration of results from technological and socio-economic
Delphi studies.
However, these approaches provide only a superficial level of integration.
The Austrian Delphi exercise, described in the ICT Report (Annex 2) did make a very
explicit attempt at integration by running two exercises in parallel, a Technology Delphi
and a Society/Culture Delphi. A range of stakeholders was involved in these exercises,
SUPRA NETWORK 22

but the average percentage involvement of social scientists was only 8% which is hardly a
good basis for equality of treatment.
As the ICT Report (Annex 2) notes, scenarios can be used to integrate social aspects of
ICT into foresight. What is at issue however, is the extent to which socio economic
dimensions are a central part of the scenario exercise, shaping the definition of strategic
implications, the conception of the key challenges and processes of change. In many
cases socio-economic dimensions are used only to give texture to technically-driven
projects by providing convincing stories. An example of effective integration of the socio-
economic is, however, provided by the study conducted for the Dutch government,
described in Annex 2 (KPMG, 2000). The scenario study began with the development of
two ICT scenarios based on two kinds of driving and inhibiting forces: technological
functionalities and acceptance of actual possibilities. The two scenarios reflected a ‘ICT
high’ and an ‘ICT low’ society respectively. Subsequently, these two scenarios were
combined with four existing scenario studies on economy, infrastructure and mobility,
spatial planning and environment, which had been previously published. Throughout this
study, the development of ICT in society was conceptualised both as a technological and
as a societal issue. Scenarios concentrated on societal, political, economic and
environmental impacts, not on technological developments. It was assumed that
technological developments are global and independent from the specific Dutch context.
Though the scenario dimensions are somewhat schematised, this does represent a
serious attempt at integration of social and technical aspects. In other cases, scenarios
have been criticised for offering unrealistic accounts of how new ICTs may help resolve
current problems, for example by failing to take into account what we already know about
innovation processes in ICT and the gulf between expectation and outcome.
Also, as noted in the Life Sciences Report (Annex 3) in the Agro-Food Delphi (Menrad et
al., 1999) the integration of socio-economic issues was an integral aim of the project. This
study identified the opportunities and impacts created by life sciences and also included
the demand dimension, involving stakeholders such as consumer groups and NGOs in
the project as ‘experts’.
3.2 Foresight in the Environmental Context
In general, the models of Foresight which are adopted are linked to the kinds of
intervention being considered. In planning a transition to a more environmentally
sustainable economic system, rather than tracking specific innovation trajectories, it may
be necessary to alter the parameters of energy and other resource utilisation over a wide
range of activities, technologies and industries. It then becomes necessary to address the
changes in regulations, market dynamics and public policy that may be needed to
motivate a rethinking of entire systems of production and consumption (see for example
Section 2.3, Figure 5).
Thus, as indicated in the Environment Dimensions Report (Annex 4), socially legitimate
Foresight-related decisions cannot rely only on technical expertise. Expression of wider
social demands will be required to integrate the preferences of a broad spectrum of
stakeholders with sometimes divergent principles, justifications and ethics. Where a single
method or principle of judgement does not prevail, a reasoned and robust base for
regulation of technology and environmental resource use should be based on social
deliberation and not just calculation. However, as noted above, technological and social
Foresight both usually espouse an underlying technological vision of societal progress.
Relying exclusively on Foresight studies to orient environmental and sustainable
development policy assumes that technological innovation can bring adequate responses
to all the required policy goals.9
9
This depends upon a view of kinds of change that may be required to achieve environmental
sustainability that has been described as the ‘weak sustainability’ hypothesis of unlimited
SUPRA NETWORK 23

In the context of decision making on environmental issues and sustainable development,
distinguished from a ‘technological’ outlook, social foresight presumes that we first enquire
about society’s needs in economic, social and ecological terms and then look for the
means to satisfy them, including institutional considerations, a wide variety of social and
cultural factors, and also technological means. In such a case it is necessary to appraise,
alongside the hopes placed in technology, governance and organisational reforms,
possible upsets or disruptions, and new problems which may emerge. Technological
innovation becomes just one means amongst many to be considered and exploited in
pursuing societal goals. This form of social Foresight is usually conducted at the level of a
country or region.
In conducting Foresight in the Environmental Dimension, Delphi techniques and scenario
planning were again among the most prominent methods adopted. A further method
described in Annex 4 is multiple criteria analysis (MCA), a decision aid which helps to
frame the problem and organise the process of arriving at a decision. However, the report
recommends that MCA should be embedded within a larger deliberative process which is
responsive to a wide spectrum of stakeholder views.
Table 1, taken from the Environmental Dimensions Report summarises the perceived
strengths and weaknesses of the Foresight methods in use in this context. However, as
has also been noted in other contexts, the selection of a particular method will not itself
guarantee an integrative approach or broad consideration of societal concerns. The
framing of issues is the most important factor: if societal needs are framed in narrow
productivity and economic competitiveness terms, then a correspondingly narrow
exploitation of expertise can seem appropriate; if societal needs are seen in a complex,
evolving and multi-dimensional way, including culture, equity of opportunities, political
organisation and environmental quality, then extended involvement of stakeholders will be
seen as desirable both for the initial framing of the issues and for contributions to
evaluation of options and to recommendations based on study results.
Both technology and social Foresight, in the environmental and other contexts, need to
bring together a variety of stakeholders using participative techniques such as:
• Public enquiries and public commentaries - discussion groups to gather citizens’
opinions on particular issues
• Citizens’ panels - small groups selected to convey representative citizens’ opinions to
decision-makers
• Citizens’ juries - groups resembling citizens’ panels, where deliberations result in a
verdict or recommendation
• Consensus Conferences - broader participations combining panels of lay people and
experts in an ad hoc public forum, typically to consider broader or more fundamental
questions
• Mediation - the parties concerned in the debate or controversy try to identify their
differences and find solutions through discussion with the help of a neutral third party.
The level of participation involved varies across these approaches. Thus, public enquiries
and public commentaries can imply flows of information in one direction only, from the
public to the government where citizens do not know what use government will make of
the information. Citizens’ juries and citizens’ panels and consensus conferences can help
express knowledge and values in a manner which is both interactive and organized. They
can examine and recommend decisions and also explore possible futures in conjunction
with various other Foresight methods. Discursive and deliberative processes can also be
used to construct social, economic or ecological ‘futures’ where the related discussion
substitutability between natural and technical capital (Faucheux et Noël, 1995) or the ‘competing
objectives’ approach (Tait and Morris, 2000).
SUPRA NETWORK 24

becomes a process of articulation of values within the community providing a dynamic
contribution to decision-making.
SUPRA NETWORK 25

Table 1: Recapitulation of the different foresight methods*
Method Approach Advantages
Potential to integrate
participation
Limits
DELPHI
Analysis by a large group
of experts
Synthetic view of a large
number of experts’
responses
In theory but not much in
practice
Slow and costly; difficulty of
mobilising many experts;
information loss in quantification
Scenarios
Construction of possible,
alternative futures
Aid to decision making
without giving forecast,
explores uncertainty
Yes, depending on
participative techniques
used
Plausibility; requires time to
establish a definitive scenario;
imagination of the participants
Relevance Trees
Normative, systematic
approach
Fixed objectives, display
of possible choices
Yes, depending on the
actors and participative
techniques used
Taking into account all the
predefined factors; necessity of
distinct levels of hierarchy ;
information loss between systems
Benchmarking
Search for best ideas and
methods to integrate them
and then become the best
Fixing ever more efficient
goals
No
Depends exclusively on opinions of
highly specialized experts; no
participation possible; no creation
possible
Critical Technology
Exercises
Classification of
technologies according to
different criteria
Low cost and rapid results No
Depends solely on experts’ views,
criteria ill-defined. Low creativity
Multi-criteria analysis
A set of criteria enable
restriction of the number of
possible results.
Enables a simple
classification of
information
Yes according to the
actors and participative
techniques used
Can hamper creativity
* From Environment Dimension Report, Annex 4
SUPRA NETWORK 26

3.3 Foresight and Regional Development
There has been a notable growth of Foresight exercises at the regional level. The study
has pointed to the diversity of these exercises. In some cases, regional foresight studies
were launched by public bodies such as regional development agencies. In others the
approach was to set up a network representing many types of organisations, educational,
industry, government, regional development, business, technology support and trade
federations. The different governance structures between countries determine the type of
approach taken to Foresight, given that some regions have a high degree of local
autonomy while others struggle to find the local means to carry out Foresight and
implement its results.
As with the other sector reports, regional foresight studies used a range of methods,
mainly Delphi, expert panels, scenario techniques, consultant activities, workshops and
consensus conferences. All the studies selected included technological foresight as an
important key element in their vision of the future and three cases focused almost entirely
on technology related aspects. Social issues were involved in some cases however these
were limited in scope and included only education, management strategies, crime
prevention, lifelong learning, the voluntary sector. In one example, lifelong learning
foresight looked at the future training and development needs of businesses and
employees, and sector foresight sought to increase the competitive standing of regional
industry and society.
Three levels of stakeholder participation were observed:
• stakeholders who took part in the technologically driven exercises considered that the
approach was top-down – they took part as experts in their field but were not
consulted on the design of the approach
• where social issues were taken into account a wider range of stakeholders was
involved and the methodology was more ‘bottom-up’ and interactive
• a very high level of interactive participation was achieved where stakeholders had the
chance to establish the methodology to be followed and were involved in the design of
the whole Foresight process.
The Regional Development Report found differences across the various regional
Foresight exercises studied in the extent of stakeholder involvement and in the balance
between short and long term goals. Indeed there seemed to be a trade off between these
factors. In one case, a short term and bottom-up approach to Foresight had enabled a
more specific focus on particular socio-economic considerations within the region (the
particular challenges in relation to local economic development, employment and skill) as
well as on technical developments.
However, in another case, participants were disappointed by the methods used and their
implementation: proposed scenarios were seen as too divorced from reality and not
matched to realistic future trends; also the scenarios did not take local factors into
account. In another example, the choice of international technological references was
seen as too broad covering too many fields, some of which did not match the
technological competences of the region. This had a negative influence on the credibility
of the exercise in itself. Participants found it difficult to adapt the discussions to subjects
of regional interest. Participants in another example mentioned dissatisfaction with the
lack of sensibility towards local cultural factors.
Other problematic aspects of several regional Foresight exercises were time and cost
constraints except for more autonomous regions which can provide public funding. Time
constraints arose where a Foresight study had insufficient staff to carry out the work or
where time was taken up in adapting national and international concepts to the regional
level.
SUPRA NETWORK 27

The more open-ended and participatory regional Foresight studies also seemed to be
more effective in identifying the main social demands of the region. Where discussion was
focused more narrowly on technological issues, enterprise competitiveness was the
strongest factor and other social demands were ignored.
SUPRA NETWORK 28

4. Evaluating Foresight Processes
4.1 Foresight Methodology
In most of the cases studied for this report, socio-economic integration was seen to be
fulfilled by the inclusion of a wider range of societal representatives in the overall
Foresight process. No cases were found where there had been methodological integration
of socio-economic and technological aspects of the exercise and the examples studied
here cannot be seen as paying more than mere lip service to integration.
However some of the processes used to incorporate the views of a cross-section of
stakeholders go beyond mere elicitation of attitudes or preferences on technology and
policy questions. As noted in Annex 4, in a citizens’ jury or consensus conference,
participating stakeholders are given the time and information to deliberate issues in some
depth. Such processes are intended to permit principled discussion and debate, raising
the concerns of different sections of society, for example about justice and equity in
economic opportunity, long and short term sustainability, environmental and technological
risks, and cultural and ethical justifications for Foresight decisions. Not only are a variety
of social perspectives and scales brought to bear in evaluating the options, but the
building up of shared understanding can be a crucial component for building mutual trust
between people and their political representatives for effective policymaking. These
dimensions of public interest and concern are difficult to address effectively within
analytical frameworks alone or by purely expert evaluation. On the other hand, although
they do constitute good practice in stakeholder involvement, they do not provide
integration between socio-economic and technological aspects of Foresight.
Likewise, none of the methods discussed in the sector reports in Annexes 2-5 is
intrinsically more or less integrative than others. Delphi methods and scenario planning
can deal entirely with technological issues or can be extended to include socio-economic
aspects depending on how they are planned and developed. In most of the cases studied
for this report, socio-economic aspects (in the form of wider stakeholder involvement) are
brought in only to the extent that societal issues and concerns are likely to affect the
development of a particular technology.
The two main techniques involved in Foresight are Delphi techniques and scenario
planning. Few exercises were found that did not rely entirely on one or other of these
methods. This narrow range of methods in use illustrates the failure of Foresight to learn
from and adopt the methods of the other social science areas into which it is increasingly
straying (risk analysis, technology management, sustainable development, etc.).
Both scenario planning and Delphi techniques have been the subject of some criticisms,
as they are applied in the Foresight context. For example, the scenarios proposed for
discussion often pose starkly simplistic and even extreme versions of the future, with
participants being required to choose among them, no matter how unrealistic they are
perceived to be. Actual outcomes will always be more complex and messy. This is a
serious flaw in scenario planning procedures as they are commonly carried out. For
example, in the micro-optics example in Section 4.3 of the ICT Report (Annex 2), two
scenarios are proposed:
• Group Society in which community is a central value and social interactions are
relatively stable;
• Network Society in which individuals are mobile and move easily between different
networks.
In practice, in a pluralistic society, both types of scenario are likely to co-exist. Some
individuals may operate in either mode for different functions or at different times of their
lives. Likewise any society will include individuals operating in one or other mode for most
of the time. While some degree of simplification is necessary in order to make progress,
the over-simplified scenarios adopted for some Foresight exercises are often seen by
stakeholders as excluding or distorting the issues about which they are most concerned.
SUPRA NETWORK 29

There is a need to develop scenario planning methods further – for example to allow them
to be informed by what we already know about processes of innovation and their social
and technical outcomes, to capture the complex dynamics of technology development and
appropriation, and thus to ensure that the scenarios produced are more than a simple
reflection of the presumptions that underpin them (Geels 2002).
One Delphi process (the Austrian Foresight Project described in Annex 3) was noted as
having been particularly effective in eliciting the views of both societal and technological
stakeholders. Two separate Delphi exercises were carried out in parallel, one
technological and one cultural, with the interaction between the two seen as the main
channel for integrating socio-economic and scientific-technological aspects. There thus
seems to have been an intention to engage in genuine integration but little evidence of
formal methodological integration.
As generally applied, Delphi methods are a low-cost means of eliciting views from a wide
range of stakeholders but the approach is simplistic and open to manipulation by
respondents who may have a strong vested interest in one particular technology or vision
of the future.
The process of including a wide range of stakeholders as participants in Foresight is also
not without its problems. The Royal Society (1998) has noted that Foresight participants
(members of Panels and Task Forces) should operate as individuals not as
representatives of particular interest groups (including their employers). However,
Rappert (1999) interviewed Panel members in UK Foresight, some of whom had
experienced ‘role strain’ in being expected to be disinterested and neutral while also
having certain backgrounds, areas of interest and agendas. Rappert concludes that it is
unrealistic to suppose individuals on Panels or elsewhere are not trying to make a case
for certain versions of the future, especially academics specialising in particular fields
whose future funding opportunities may be affected. He also comments on ‘the dominant
role of elites in the process’ and notes that the participants in the first round of UK
Foresight were largely ‘well-established players in the policy-making process’.
4.2 Foresight Outcomes and Implementation
The monitoring of complex programmes like Foresight with the aim of assessing and
effecting large-scale long-term change is a complex and challenging process. Public
Foresight usually requires sustained innovative thinking from teams of individuals who do
not regularly work together and whose efforts are largely voluntary. Even for
straightforward technology Foresight where there is no attempt to include socio-economic
issues, there are numerous cross-linking issues requiring a systemic, integrated approach
to development and also monitoring. Under such circumstances, an overly instrumental
approach to evaluation can de-motivate teams and restrict creativity. If the satisfaction of
simplistic indicators and short-term internal goals takes precedence over the broader
mission, the fulfilment of which may only become apparent in the long-term, the result
may be an emphasis on programmatic outputs, and programmes which do not deliver
their broader long-term, and indirect/unanticipated as well as direct/anticipated benefits.
The implementation of foresight recommendations is thus a complex process with no
accepted methodology for its evaluation. As noted in Annex 3, a key question is how to
attribute change in a policy action or other outcome to the recommendations or general
outputs from a Foresight project. Such changes could be quantitative or qualitative
requiring specific indicators in each case. It is necessary, not only to detect relevant
changes, but also to identify the role of Foresight in generating the changes.
Two types of relationship between Foresight and policy activity can be differentiated:
• a direct interrelation in the sense that recommendations are directly taken up by
policy-makers and transformed into activities, such as thematic orientations or re-
orientations of research funding or technology support programmes
SUPRA NETWORK 30

• where the outcomes of a Foresight exercise make it possible for policy makers to
consider new options or open up new approaches and arenas which are guided only
indirectly or partially by the original Foresight process.
Particularly where the relationship is indirect, the identification of foresight impacts relies
largely on the assessment of individual policy-makers, experts involved in Foresight and
researchers from organisations conducting the exercise and these assessments will be
influenced by their personal attitudes to the goals of the particular Foresight study.
Despite the considerable investment in Foresight initiatives in several countries, there has
been surprisingly little experience of evaluation of these programmes beyond formal
comparison of various national systems (Martin and Johnston, 1998) looking at aims,
objectives, structures and analysis of the assumptions rather than detailed evaluation of
outcomes and impacts embodied in national programmes (Rappert, 1999).
Studies of the progress of UK Foresight over the past five years have addressed some
important issues concerned with their evaluation (Tait et al., 2000). UK Foresight was
originally seen as an initiative to stimulate innovation “..... to create sustainable
competitive advantage and enhance the quality of life, by bringing together business, the
science base and Government to identify and respond to emerging opportunities in
markets and technologies.” At this level of aspiration, and even at lower levels, it is not
possible to track direct relationships between Foresight objectives and outcomes.
However, it is valid and feasible to attempt to evaluate Foresight processes.
Looking at process aspects of UK Foresight, the first exercise was structured around
sixteen technology sectors with little opportunity for interaction with consumers or other
public groups. Thus the boundaries drawn around the areas to be considered by a
Foresight study, although necessary in order to structure the potential complexity of the
‘real world’, constrain who will be regarded as relevant stakeholders, what objectives will
be considered, and hence what will be relevant criteria for evaluation.
The consultation document for the second round of UK Foresight (OST, 1998b) was
critical of the narrowly technological focus of the first round and proposed that:
• Foresight Panels should remain at the heart of the Programme
• there should be a much broader basis of participation
• the Programme should aim to be more inclusive
• there should be more interaction
• it should be possible to relate different Panel reports to each other
• panels should think globally
• implementation, dissemination and impact assessment should be built in from the
beginning.
The outcome of the consultation was a Foresight Programme that made a serious effort to
integrate socio-economic and technological issues. The focus on broad themes rather
than business sectors was seen as “the really visionary part of the next round”, allowing a
systematic analysis of key issues (OST, 1998c). A much wider range of stakeholders than
before was brought into the Foresight panels thereby ensuring that there would be greater
incorporation of societal as well as technological perspectives. The result was a
considerable increase in the complexity of any evaluation of the resulting Foresight
processes.
Changes in UK technological performance that are directly attributable to a Foresight
programme are unlikely to be detectable over any realistic monitoring period. The search
for auditable outcomes generally results in overly simplistic criteria which may even have
the effect of impeding as much as assisting Foresight effectiveness. They may encourage
SUPRA NETWORK 31

a focus upon narrow internal goals or upon the pursuit of short-term, predictable and
quantifiable goals at the expense of longer-term more open-ended outcomes.
In a context of uncertainty, and in relation to long-term, high level goals, process-related
performance criteria are a more useful indicator of the success and influence of a
Foresight study (Martin and Irvine, 1989). We would also flag the importance of
monitoring the extent of ‘social learning’ by those engaged in Foresight (Rip et al., 1995;
Sørensen, 1996; Williams et al., 2000). Thus, the experience of stakeholders, collated
through case studies provide a key resource, in terms of assessment (feedback about
how effective activities have been) and management (suggestions for how the
programmes could be improved).
One of the key process benefits of Foresight which can be evaluated fairly readily is the
development of new and potentially long lived networks of stakeholders who may not
otherwise have come together and also the joint learning among such groups about
Foresight processes and how to manage interactions among stakeholders with possibly
divergent objectives.
SUPRA NETWORK 32

5. Conclusions
This section summarises our conclusions from the ITSAFE Project, based on the four
sector reports, the report on North/South Issues and the presentations and discussions at
the final meeting held in Brussels on 28th
November 2002, including contributions from the
guest speaker Professor Ian Miles of Manchester University.
5.1 The Evolution of Foresight
As noted in the Introduction, this project has studied the extent to which the social
sciences can provide useful tools for Foresight in enabling the incorporation of socio-
economic considerations into technology-based Foresight, and in the evaluation of
Foresight processes.
The areas covered under the heading of ‘Foresight’ have been expanding over the past
ten to fifteen years from a series of relatively straightforward attempts to predict potentially
successful technology trajectories to much more sophisticated exercises which at least
claim to integrate social and technological aspects and to shape societal futures rather
than predicting and promoting technological futures. Nevertheless, despite its extension
into these new arenas, Foresight usually still retains its identity as a means of exploring
the interactions of society with technology and the remit of ITSAFE was to explore these
interactions. So far relatively few Foresight exercises have dealt with issues where
technology has not been one of the main foci of attention, although some have advocated
that its use in such contexts should be extended (see Annex 4).
A great many Foresight (or Foresight-like) exercises are conducted in the private domain,
for companies operating in technology based sectors (particularly in firms with long
plant/product life-cycles e.g. pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals). A continuing aspect of
many Foresight studies has been to encourage companies to engage in Foresight on their
own account, to strengthen the emphasis and competence in forward thinking and
research and development, and this has been moderately successful in many industry
sectors. In addition, many organisations across all sectors, not just those that are
technology based, now engage in scenario planning, a process with many similarities to
Foresight, and indeed one which is often used as part of a formal Foresight exercise.
However, this is an area that is not open to public scrutiny, the results being almost
always confidential to the company or companies concerned. It is clear from some of our
interviews with industry managers that Foresight exercises conducted in the public
domain are seen by them as simplistic and lacking in general validity, compared to those
conducted by companies (Tait et al., 2001). However, there is no way to validate such
statements. It seems likely that companies’ technological Foresight is better grounded in
knowledge of the science and technology areas than public Foresight, but the integration
of social factors (except in the context of exploring new markets) has been given much
less attention by companies, at least until recent eruptions of public concern about new
technology, for example in life sciences.
Foresight in the public domain is generally directed towards informing public policies and
in some countries it has become part of national moves towards ‘joined up’, governance
based approaches to policy making across a broad range of issues (Lyall and Tait, 2003).
To some extent this is dictating the pace of evolution of Foresight, attempting to deliver
adaptive policies that can respond rapidly to emerging developments, and the integration
of social and technological aspects suggests that we will need to combine different kinds
of evidence and argument in new, more creative ways.
In the life sciences and ICT some aspects of policy development are related to changing
technology regimes (Annexes 1 and 2; Grupp 1993) in that the boundaries between
different technology areas are fading and that technological advances are increasingly
emerging at the borderlines between formerly distinct technologies. One consequence is
that policy needs to be an active moderator, bringing together key actors and
technologies, and leading to an increasing focus on networking (ITA, 1998) between
SUPRA NETWORK 33

research organisations and industry, financial services and other actors (Forfás 2002) and
particularly involving societal stakeholders.
These changes in Foresight orientation are taking it increasingly into territory that has long
been occupied by a range of social science disciplines (risk analysis, policy analysis,
politics, technology analysis and management, science and technology studies,
consumption and cultural studies) each with a rich methodological tradition and a wide
range of relevant theoretical concepts. Foresight could potentially derive great benefit
from engaging more actively with these disciplines but so far shows little sign of doing so.
As noted in Section 3, most Foresight exercises restrict themselves to the use of Delphi
studies or scenario planning methods, both of which have been subject to some criticisms.
While it is valid to say that Foresight is no longer solely about prediction or ‘forecasting’,
the roles which it fills, as outlined above, still imply that it will include an element of
anticipation of the future as an input to the development of policy in public and private
spheres, alongside a range of other inputs. The accuracy and relevance of these
predictions can be improved by having a better and more detailed understanding of
technology, policy and societal components of any Foresight context and also, and most
important, of the interactions among them (see for example Tait, 1993). Thus the
integration of socio-economic along with technological aspects of Foresight can result in
predictions and future scenarios that are more robust and pertinent than those which
focus on technology alone.
5.2 Motivations for Socio-economic/Technological Integration
The methodology of integration between socio-economic and technological aspects of
Foresight is not well developed, as in other areas of activity where integration of various
kinds is proposed. In most of the cases considered for ITSAFE, integration was assumed
to be achieved by involving a wider range of stakeholders in foresight processes and also
involving various forms of social deliberation and public concertation techniques.
Three levels of involvement were noted:
• discussion of Foresight outcomes with different stakeholders
• involvement of stakeholders in the definition of Foresight issues
• involvement of stakeholders in the entire Foresight process
Elaborating divergent views of different stakeholder groups during a Foresight process
adds an important dimension, generating knowledge on possible conflicts associated with
future scientific or technological developments. This in turn allows participants to develop
policies to deal with these emerging issues. In other words, Foresight can function as an
early warning system enabling the development of policies in a more precautionary way.
Stakeholder engagement does not necessarily result in a process that is inclusive of all
parties in society that claim an interest in the issues concerned. For example the
representation of local interests is not necessarily consistent with wider ecological, social,
or long-term objectives. Even when a process seeks to be inclusive, the asymmetrical
distribution of power in society can mean that poorer, less articulate (within the chosen
communication forms), or less well organised interests have a lesser say (see Annex 4).
Increasingly we are experiencing competing or even conflicting societal responses to new
technology. In some cases Foresight is being expected to take on the role of integrating
societal and technical aspects so as to avoid or resolve conflicts. However, Foresight
cannot be an effective mechanism for conflict resolution, particularly where opinions are
already polarised (see below under Life Sciences), although it can help to avoid future
conflicts if the process integrates socio-economic and technological aspects effectively
and involves all appropriate stakeholders, and also if its messages are heard and
understood by the policy and industry actors with the power and inclination to act on them
– a very demanding set of requirements.
SUPRA NETWORK 34

One of the interesting outcomes of the five studies (Annexes 2-5) conducted for ITSAFE
was that the range of motivations for conducting Foresight was very different from one
case to another.
ICT and Life Sciences
Foresight exercises conducted in the two technology based sectors studied for ITSAFE,
ICT and Life Sciences, showed many similarities in the type of exercise conducted and
the mechanisms used to engage with stakeholders, and most particularly in the focus on
facilitation of technological innovation, rather than on societal guidance of technological
innovation, as the primary motivator for Foresight.
For ICT in the Netherlands, for example (see Annex 2), the first Foresight exercise was
embedded in government technology policy, which aims to identify and remove barriers to
innovation for industry. The second Netherlands Foresight exercise was designed to
advise the government on science policy although, as noted in the report, the government
had no effective instruments and no intention of implementing the resulting priorities. The
conclusions were that exercises identifying societal aspects most relevant for industry,
such as life long learning, new e-business practices and structures, and changing work
organisation, only provide broad brush views to argue the importance of such issues.
Analysis of the dynamics of change was weak.
However, analysis of governance- and policy-related recommendations from various
Foresight studies demonstrated that there are also pronounced differences between the
ICT and Life Science sectors. As indicated in Section 2.5, the different product
hierarchies, market structures and regulatory regimes in the two sectors (and differences
in product architectures within the ICT sector) should result in very different approaches to
foreseeing interactions among the public, policy makers, consumers and regulatory
bodies, although this ideal approach does not always happen in practice.
Within the life sciences sector (see Annex 3), there are also major differences between
the health care and agro-food areas. In the agro-food sector there is a strong emphasis on
issues related to public acceptance, public information, safety and regulations. In the
health care domain on the other hand, such issues are not prominent among Foresight
recommendations. Instead, they tend to focus on how specific health care areas, such as
children’s health or the relation between environment and health, could be improved in the
future. In both cases, discussion of ethical, legal and social aspects associated with
modern agricultural and health care technologies, which are very relevant to Foresight, is
generally done under non-Foresight headings and these aspects are not subsequently
integrated into Foresight studies.
Likewise, public participation and information provision has not been a big issue in health
care Foresight even though public involvement in discussions on health care technologies
is taking place in other non-Foresight contexts. Only few studies such as the UK Foresight
Programme (Georghiou 1996) have discussed the inclusion of the lay voice in health
matters as an important action point. In the agro-food sector, on the other hand, there are
calls for much stronger public participation in innovation processes.
Thus, the integration of the public as socio-economic variable into technological/scientific
issues in health care seems to be neglected while the opposite is the case in agro-food
applications, perhaps as a result of the relatively low level of controversy in health care
issues, compared to agro-biotechnology.
One of the cases studied by the Life Sciences Report involved approximately 50
representatives from industry, environmental groups, regulatory agencies and scientific
research bodies in an exercise on genetically-engineered herbicide-resistant (HR) crops.
Public and environmentalist concern centred on possible risks of the release of transgenic
plants and the intensified use of chemicals in weed control. Participation was effectively
managed in that participants were able to define the scope of the assessment, to evaluate
the results of expert reports, and to draw conclusions. However, the process was marked
SUPRA NETWORK 35

by conflicts, and environmental group representatives refused to participate in the final
conference at which conclusions were to be presented and discussed. This is just one
example of the inadequacy of Foresight as a tool for conflict resolution, particularly where
views are polarised.
The Environment Dimension
In contrast to technology sectors, Foresight exercises conducted under this heading are
more likely to focus on sustainable development and to be motivated by a desire to control
technology, rather than to promote it. Here the deliberative ideals of co-operation, open
communication of information, and stakeholder concertation are much more important
than in life sciences and ICT sectors. Also, in this context, Foresight tends to blend more
seamlessly into other areas of public decision making which are not normally labelled as
‘Foresight’ which can create lack of methodological clarity, confusion over how outputs
should be implemented and by whom, and the emergence of ‘ownership’ responses by
policy makers (and also by some academics) who feel that their areas of responsibility
and intellectual territories have been invaded.
Despite the greater focus on the control of technology rather than its promotion, and the
more effective involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, deliberative procedures also
run into difficulties in the context of environmental issues. In many cases these have their
roots in conflicts of interest, divergence of perspectives, and uncertainties that pose
problems for more analytical evaluation and decision support process. Major
environmental disputes are often grounded in differing and deep-rooted principles which
may be incompatible, meaning that compromise for one or more of the parties is not
possible (Tait, 2001).
Social science is described in the Environment Dimension Report (Annex 4) as primarily
an aid to understanding before becoming, secondarily, a tool for policy. However, it is
usually with a view to its usefulness as a tool for policy that there is significant funding of
social science contributions to foresight exercises. The tension which is inherent in the
character of social science is one of the main reasons why the usefulness of social
science in policy research remains a matter of some dissent. It is a task of the reflexive
social scientist to insist on the importance of the role of critic within society in complement
to, and sometimes in contradiction with, the role of counsel for established authority.
Regional Foresight
In most regional Foresight exercises, the emphasis again is on improving a region’s
innovative capacity, with a view to improving its competitiveness and overall prosperity. In
most of the regional Foresight case studies described in Annex 5, participants were not
particularly concerned about the lack of social considerations within their subject-matter.
Indeed only a few considered when asked that it would have been better to have included
the societal dimension more explicitly, and that this would have enriched the debate and
the results.
The influence of Foresight on policy was variable at the regional level, depending in part
on the degree of autonomy possessed by different European regions. In the Basque case
some of the conclusions of the Foresight exercise were included in regional planning,
particularly considering support for strategic research areas. On the other hand, in North
East England, the influence on policy was seen to be relatively small and slow to emerge,
perhaps due to the lesser degree of regional autonomy in that area. In other regions, the
benefits were seen to be more tenuous, encouraging policy makers to pay more attention
to the role of technology in the future development of the region. In a small number of
cases, the emergence of start-up companies was also attributed to regional Foresight
exercises where influential local academic and industrial stakeholders had been involved
in the process.
SUPRA NETWORK 36

The North/South Dimension
The report on the North/South Dimension (Annex 6) made some interesting points about
the differences and similarities between Northern and Southern Europe when it comes to
Foresight. However, as most Foresight exercises have been done in the north, the overall
weight of southern countries is unequal in comparison. This means that discussion of
approaches to the review, assessment and evaluation of Foresight are more embedded
in the cultures of northern countries and any discourse on Foresight will reflect this
stronger tradition.
When viewed from a southern European perspective (see Annex 6 for a proposed
framework for a North/South approach), the following points were among those seen as
relevant:
• uncertainty should be seen as both a constraint and a resource
• the temporal and spatial scales of different spheres of life create obstacles to a clear
social imagination to grasp new evolutionary dynamics
• in different areas of Foresight and in different countries, rhetorics and communication
schemes are used in different ways, being part of the cultural patterns to express
hopes, expectations and anxieties about the future
• social sciences have to face a new challenge - to analyse, study and formulate
interpretations for new processes and practices in conducting Foresight
• the North/South question could be put on the agenda of Foresight exercises by
introducing socio-cultural well being to the classical socio-economic well being, seeing
technology not in its ‘technological essence’ but also as socio-cultural structure.
5.3 Outcomes of Integration in Foresight
As the reports in Annexes 2-6 show, there have now been numerous cases where
Foresight exercises have attempted to integrate socio-economic and technological
aspects of the cases under consideration. However, there are relatively few examples
where the outcomes of such an exercise have been implemented in full and even fewer
where they can be shown to have resulted in improvements in implementation or in
policies.
As noted above, the usual mechanism adopted to provide better integration between
socio-economic and technological aspects of Foresight is the involvement of a wider
range of societal stakeholders in Foresight processes. However, this can in itself create
serious tensions within these processes.
In the UK The Royal Society (1998) has pointed out that if Foresight becomes too broad it
risks losing its focus and hence the attention of some key sectors. In informal discussions
with industry managers, who have been involved in the UK and Germany with Foresight
exercises incorporating significant socio-economic components, managers have reported
a high degree of frustration with what they see as the slow pace of progress, and indeed
some have withdrawn from the process altogether as a result. This could imply a failure of
the Foresight organisers to make the case for socio-economic engagement, but it could
equally be due to the resistance of many industry managers to undertake genuine
engagement with public stakeholders. Indeed, one test of Foresight effectiveness could be
whether leading players from industry and academia find it sufficiently in their self-interest
to become (and stay) involved.
There are also issues about the range of stakeholders involved and their expertise base.
The involvement of stakeholders from various backgrounds allows a wider range of
perspectives to be articulated, beyond the traditional foresight constituencies of
technologists and research policymakers. There may also be a need to bring in social
scientists with specialist knowledges, methodologies and tools – who may offer not only
specialist expertise and but also analytical distance: independence and scope for wider
SUPRA NETWORK 37

reflection that may not be provided by industrial and public interest groups and policy
players.
The difficulty of achieving socio-economic integration in Foresight programmes should not
be under-estimated. The incorporation of a much more integrative approach into UK
Foresight in the second round was carried out effectively and with enthusiasm by most
participants, but the approach was abandoned at the end of the first phase of the second
round. UK Foresight in the Department of Trade and Industry has now returned to a much
more limited focus on scientific and technological issues, and the task of dealing with the
socio-economic aspects has been returned to the policy departments that previously dealt
with them. In practice this means that integration in the latest phase of Foresight in the UK
is unlikely to be as effective as it was in the first part of Phase 2. This outcome reflects the
need for integration in Foresight to be mirrored in the integration of the policy community
that will be expected to implement recommendations.
Concerns have also been expressed that private interests might have an undue influence
in shaping Foresight processes. This is certainly likely to be the case where the wider
range of public stakeholders is excluded form active engagement with Foresight.
However, as noted above, this may be the price to be paid if we want to ensure that
Foresight does contribute to innovation, wealth creation and the quality of life when care
needs to be taken to ensure that people are motivated to take part in Foresight for self-
interested reasons for their organisation or firm. Another tension related to public/private
motivations for engaging in Foresight, is the question of the extent to which firms are likely
to place in a public setting the commercially sensitive outcomes of their own company’s or
organisation’s internal Foresight efforts.
A comparison between Foresight exercises in ICT and Life Sciences would suggest that a
wider range of public stakeholders has been brought into discussions in the life sciences
area because of the degree of public controversy in this area, i.e. there is a relationship
between the perceived controversy generated by an issue and the extent to which socio-
economic integration is seen as relevant (Menrad et al., 1999). Where there are mainly
common interests in the issue being analysed, the integration process seems weak
compared to the opposite situation where there are conflicting interests associated with an
issue.
However as we noted above Foresight, even if well integrated, should not be expected to
resolve conflicts that are already well developed and highly polarised. Indeed it can further
increase the degree of polarisation. The key to effective use of Foresight in such
situations is to conduct the integrated Foresight exercise before full-blown controversy has
emerged and to have key actors, particularly scientists and industrialists committed to
implementing its recommendations. In the case of GM crops in Europe, this would need to
have taken place in the late 1980s or early 1990s. However it is probably excessively
utopian to expect industry managers to pay more attention to the outcomes of an
externally generated set of Foresight recommendations than they would to their own
internally generated forecasts. It is also much more difficult to persuade public
stakeholders and groups to become engaged in exercises such as Foresight in the
absence of controversy, when they cannot see the relevance of the discussions to them.
This was certainly the experience with GM crops in the late 1980s.
Biases were also identified in the assessments of the future of ICT (see Annex 2),
including:
• over-generalisation of the benefits of ICT
• the view that technology completely determines societal developments
• over-generalisation of the harmful aspects of ICT
• the view that society fully determines technological development.
SUPRA NETWORK 38

Thus, the methods in use were generally either polarised towards technological
determinism which is usually associated with optimism about the outcomes of the
technology (as in the first two bullets) or, as in the second two bullets, associated with
pessimism about the outcomes of the technology, focused mainly on the view that
technological outcomes are largely societally determined. There should be a role for more
technological pessimism (or merely realism) coupled with more social optimism about the
implications of new technology. However, it would be unrealistic to expect industry to
provide such inputs impartially on its own behalf. There is therefore an important role for
publicly funded bodies to undertake such exercises more frequently.
The requirement for more technological realism in Foresight exercises points to the need
for close involvement of those who have detailed knowledge of the science and
technology involved. However, from our own interviews with senior industry managers, it
is clear that there is reluctance to engage openly in such dialogue. Revealing the relevant
specialised knowledge runs the risk of undermining a company’s commercial competitive
advantage, so even where managers do engage in public Foresight exercises, they rarely
reveal the full extent of their knowledge. Where companies engage in internal Foresight
exercises this will not be a problem, but the availability of good social Foresight is likely to
be much more limited in such cases. Thus, public Foresight is likely to be weak on
technological competence and commercial Foresight to be weak on societal aspects.
There are important issues to be addressed regarding how scenarios are deployed, both
in relation to their methodology and evidential base. Some scenarios are used uncritically
and are as much concerned with ‘selling’ a particular view of how technologies might be
used, as with providing a critical assessment of the prospects and pitfalls of particular
kinds of change. The question then is what range of stakeholders should be given a voice
in the scenario exercise. Scenario methods are not yet well established. This is,
however, a rapidly developing area where corporate thinking and private practice, in some
areas arguably running ahead of academic analysis and public discussion, could make an
enormously valuable contribution. There have also been a number of interesting
conceptual advances, for example in relation to socio-technical scenarios (see amongst
others Elzen 2001, Geels 2002). Given the diversity and variability of scenarios activities
further work to give a proper intellectual and methodological foundation to scenarios
would be extremely helpful to consolidate and test existing knowledge and to see how the
scenarios concept could be carried forwards in particular as a vehicle for integrating social
and economic dimensions.
Differences of approach have also emerged in different countries. In Japan, Foresight
exercises have continued to retain a strongly technocratic approach while at the other end
of the spectrum, Austria's first Delphi process (1996-8) tried to integrate social and
technological dimensions through organising a Social Delphi alongside the Technology
Delphi in relation to specific societal sectors and needs (See Annex 2).
A number of procedures and techniques related to the integration of socio-economic and
technological aspects of Foresight were identified in the sector reports as having improved
the effectiveness of implementation.
• Intensive involvement of policy-makers in the Foresight process leads to an increased
impact as recommendations can then be adapted to policy issues more smoothly. Also
there is less chance of confronting policy makers with surprising results, again leading
to improved willingness to incorporate Foresight outcomes into policy and political
organisation.
• In political decision making processes there are windows of opportunity where
external inputs can exert most influence and ideally Foresight outcomes should be
available during such windows.
SUPRA NETWORK 39

• Where there has been a high and consistent level of stakeholder participation
throughout a Foresight exercise, it achieves a higher degree of credibility and a
stronger sense of ownership among participants.
• Where there is a strong connection between the main issues studied and local
concerns in regional Foresight, implementation of recommendations is more likely to
take place.
• In at least some cases the methodology chosen for Foresight seems less important for
the influence of the outcomes and the satisfaction of participants than the
effectiveness of stakeholder involvement in the configuration of the methodology.
• Where the public administration provides financial incentives this enhances the level
of participation of companies in Foresight.
• Creating a link between different organisations with different expertise, establishing a
co-operative structure can explicitly integrate socio-economic and technological
dimensions.
• Even within a single domain, there will be variations which influence the integration of
technical and social issues in Foresight. For example, in the life sciences there are
mainly common interests in the health care domain which may facilitate integrative
approaches, and mainly conflicting interests in the agro-food domain, which may pose
additional problems for integrative strategies.
• Far-reaching or pervasive technologies are likely to lead to the definition of a broad
spectrum of socio-economic issues, while less controversial and more narrowly
defined technologies can be accommodated within a more distinct pattern.
• The stage of development of a technology can be important in fostering the
integration of the socio-economic and technological domains. Though we have
argued that Foresight is not likely to be decisive in resolving controversies that have
become established around particular technological commitments and concerns,
Foresight exercises could, conversely be particularly beneficial in the earliest stages of
development of new technology programmes. The conduct of an integrated Foresight
exercise in early stage technologies could provide a forum and framework in which
key issues and options could be raised while a technology and its applications are still
fluid. Such work might be particularly beneficial by helping, for example to identify the
possible future impacts, to compare possible regional differences, or to identify other
technologies with similar configurations that can provide lessons for the future.
Foresight could help offset the situation (which may be beginning to happen today
around current early technologies such as nanotechnology) in which something of a
vacuum has emerged around the claims about the potential of a new technology – a
vacuum which seems likely to get filled – indeed overloaded - with projected hopes
and concerns that are not based on systematic methodologies or lessons from earlier
episodes on innovation.
Although not related to any particular Foresight methodology, the appropriateness or
relevance of the above factors should all be considered as part of the conduct of an
integrated Foresight exercise.
SUPRA NETWORK 40

6. Integration Guidelines and Toolkit for Evaluating Foresight Processes
As the above analysis has shown there are increasing numbers of Foresight exercises
which claim to be integrating socio-economic and technological aspects of Foresight.
However this rarely involves any formal methodological integration in Foresight
processes, and the integration of Foresight outcomes into policy processes is even less
well developed. This section outlines a ‘toolkit’ for conducting this type of integration which
can be applicable across all the Foresight contexts described in this report. While we
acknowledge that Foresight should not be seen simplistically as equivalent to
‘forecasting’, the integrative approach we describe here can provide more intelligent
exploration and prediction of uncertain futures than most of the methods currently in use.
Methodologies for Foresight – and for the integration of socio-economic and technical
aspects cannot guarantee the success of the exercise – since much depends upon the
skill and experience of those carrying out the exercise. It can however begin to alert
Foresight organisers and members more systematically to the issues which should be
considered. The proposals here involve some generic elements – regarding the structured
involvement of a range of stakeholders and how this may be organised over time. We also
present a specific proposal regarding the use of mapping as a device to convey to the
various Foresight participants and stakeholders the array of issues that might be involved
in integrating socio-economic and technological aspects of foresight – and crucially the
relationships between issues as well as lacunae – using a visual mapping tool.
The report by Tait et al. (2000) outlined a ‘road mapping’ approach to monitoring of
Foresight processes which we have adapted here to contribute to a toolkit for Foresight
integration. The approach is designed to:
• be transparent and readily accessible at all levels of Foresight;
• take account of the varied needs of Foresight stakeholders;
• identify key points in the programme where indicators will be most needed;
• give guidance on appropriate methods and types of indicator, qualitative and
quantitative;
• give guidance on the timing of evaluations;
• evaluate Foresight processes as well as outputs; and
• contribute constructively to integration of socio-economic and technological aspects of
a Foresight programme.
Maps of this nature are widely used as strategic planning tools (Eden and Ackerman,
1999) and they have also been used as a research tool, for example to compare the
innovation strategies of multinational companies (Chataway and Tait, 1993; Tait and
Chataway, 2000). In a Foresight context, they have been used by BP to devise an R&D
strategy embracing the core business areas of the company, using them to provide visual
descriptions summarising the outcomes of numerous discussions involving a wide range
of personnel (Kostoff, 1997). However, the use of roadmaps as a tool for integration of
socio-economic and technological aspects of Foresight would, so far as we are aware, be
a new development.
Successful Foresight proceeds by stimulating behavioural change amongst a network of
players through the production of visions and beliefs about future societal and/or
technological pathways and patterns of technical and social interaction. The proposed
maps can facilitate integration, monitoring and evaluation of such processes and, by
developing a time series of maps over the period of a Foresight exercise, can
demonstrate in a clearly displayed qualitative manner the evolution of processes and the
learning among participants.
SUPRA NETWORK 41

6.1 Initial structuring phase
Effective integration requires an initial phase where there is creative and explicit
structuring of boundaries, to decide which aspects are relevant to be included as part of
the system of interest and which should be considered as important components of its
external operating environment, as was illustrated in Section 2.5 for ICT and life
sciences10
.
As issues change and new opportunities arise, as new information emerges about the
areas of interest, or as participants refine their ideas about useful boundaries around the
area of interest, these boundaries may need to be adjusted. However, flexibility of this
nature will always be limited by the time and financial resources available. The skill in
managing a Foresight exercise is in achieving an optimum balance between the need for
flexibility and adjustment and the need to deliver useful outputs in a restricted timescale.
There should be an in-depth analysis of the key components of the selected system and
its operating environment and detailed consideration of their interactions. This could be
based on reports produced by experts involved in the Foresight exercise, based on their
knowledge of the context, but may involve additional scientific investigation, surveys or
interviews with key stakeholder groups.
Selection of the range of stakeholders to be involved should also be part of this initial
structuring phase. Grunwald (1999) has noted that participation should lead to a common
understanding of what is to be done and of the criteria to be applied for establishing the
appropriate plan of action. Participation should involve collective learning where policy
makers, laypersons and experts all learn from one another. The required degree of
stakeholder involvement and collective learning can be assessed via interviews with
Foresight Panel members and other stakeholders. Taking the meaning of stakeholders in
its broadest sense11
those involved in a Foresight process could include:
• academic researchers (scientist and social scientists)
• industry representatives from large and small companies
• policy makers and regulators
• independent policy advisers
• politicians
• professional bodies and learned societies
• public and private interest groups
• media organisations
• consumers
• government departments and agencies
• university funding bodies and research managers
10
In this context, the formal definitions of ‘system’ and ‘environment’ are:
Included within the system boundary are entities which affect the operation of the system and
which the system can control;
Included outside the system boundary, it its operating environment are those entities which affect
the operation of the system but over which it cannot exercise control.
11
The term stakeholder includes those who affect or are affected by the issue in question.
Originally proposed in the context of strategic management to cover those with a personal stake,
not necessarily financial, in a business (Freeman, R.E., 1984), it has been extended to cover a
broader range of organisations and individuals who may become stakeholders in an issue merely
by declaring themselves (or being declared by others) to be interested parties.
SUPRA NETWORK 42

• local government
• regional development agencies
Engagement with stakeholders in a Foresight exercise can be conducted using one or
more of the array of tools now developed for such processes, as described in Section 4.1.
6.2 Roadmaps as a Tool for Evaluating Foresight Processes
As we noted above, it is difficult, and sometimes counter-productive, to attempt to
evaluate Foresight outcomes. However, monitoring and evaluating Foresight processes,
particularly the integration of socio-economic and technical aspects relates to the core
subject of this report and can lead to useful learning and step-wise improvement in the
conduct of Foresight.
The mapping approach proposed here for evaluating Foresight processes follows from the
initial structuring phase outlined in Section 6.1 and should be developed in parallel with
the use of Foresight methods described in Section 4.1 and in Annexes 2-6. It allows those
conducting the Foresight exercise to chart their progress against objectives and,
particularly in this context, to keep track of the integration of societal and technological
components.
Our approach to mapping is supported by a software programme, Decision Explorer12
,
based on the following conventions. The examples given are based on panel reports from
the second round of UK Foresight (OST, 1998c).
Maps consist of ‘nodes’ or ‘concepts’, joined by ‘links’. Both concepts and links can be
colour-coded and so a range of different attributes and processes can be distinguished on
a single roadmap.
Concepts are expressed as short statements, each covering a single idea or notion, for
example assertions about components of a strategy, causes of a problem or means of
improving a situation. Concepts involve two contrasting poles. Where there is ‘…’ in the
middle of a concept, this indicates X ‘rather than’ Y. To give an example relevant to the
UK Food Chain and Crops for Industry Panel, the polar opposite of ‘increase the
responsiveness of the food chain to consumer concerns’ could be either ‘not increase the
responsiveness of the food chain to consumer concerns’ or ‘increase the responsiveness
of the food chain to industry concerns’. The ability to explore these distinctions with those
taking part in a Foresight exercise adds greatly to its richness of meaning. If the second
pole of a concept is not specified it implies ‘X rather than not-X’ as in the first of the two
alternatives above.
Links describe a range of different potential relationships between concepts, forming a
line of argument, a description of a problem or the components of a strategy.
Causal links: A B indicates that concept A leads to, or contributes to, B or A affects B.
Where a negative sign is attached to a causal link this indicates that the first pole of one
concept leads to the second pole of the consequential concept, i.e. A ‘not B’.
Connotative links: A —— B implies that the two concepts are associated in an unspecified
way.
Temporal links: A B, with a letter ‘T’ attached to the arrow implies that B follows in time
from A.
Generally, higher level goals and concepts are at the top of the map and the lowest level
actions contributing to these goals are towards the bottom.
To assist interpretation we have colour-coded the concepts in the examples of maps given
here as follows:
12
Banxia Software. Decision Explorer, www.banxia.com
SUPRA NETWORK 43

White: Mission statement
Blue: Strategic level objectives
Red: Panel objectives
Green: Task forces
Yellow: Task force detailed objectives
Purple: Indicators
Maps should be expected to evolve as the programme develops and a computer-based
record can be kept of the process of evolution. The maps themselves can thus be used as
an integral part of monitoring and evaluation of the programme.
It is easier to demonstrate on the basis of a map whether an overall plan is being followed
from a process point of view than it is from a list of objectives. Likewise, it is easier to
judge the quality of a strategic plan, at whatever level, from such a map than from a
written list of objectives. If the quality is not up to standard in some areas, the mapping
process can be used to help to improve it and to keep a record of the improvements and
of the delivery of higher level outcomes for monitoring purposes.
Maps also demonstrate the quality of the linkages between the various components of a
Programme, indicating where the links are not in the most appropriate places or at the
most appropriate level, and also where there is a need to add links or indeed to add new
objectives to improve efficiency or effectiveness.
The following examples of the use of this approach are based on the work of one of the
panels set up for the second Foresight round in the UK which did explicitly attempt to
integrate socio-economic and technological aspects of the exercise (OST, 1998c; Tait et
al., 2000).
The Food Chain and Crops for Industry (FCCI) Panel was particularly successful in
integrating socio-economic and technological components of its remit.
Maps 1-4 are based on the work of this panel, as documented in the report from the UK
Office of Science and Technology (OST) ‘Panel Action Plans to November 2000’.
Map 1 sets out the general work plan for the Panel. Notable points here are that the tasks
to be taken up by taskforces are specified on the basis of a mixture of industry needs
(debate on the use of technology in the food chain) and societal needs (explore food’s
contribution to health in the future). The work of the taskforces is combined with the
outputs of a stakeholder consultation in the generation of action plans for the future work
of the FCII Panel.
Map 2 is based on the formal remit of one of the taskforces identified in Map 1 (the green-
coded concept at the top). There is also a link to the work of another taskforce (Focus on
Communication in the Food Chain) and the Panel as a whole should be alert to useful
interactions between these two.
The yellow coded concepts (Task Force detailed objectives) are at a level which is short
term rather than long term and simple rather than complex and so will be relatively
straightforward to evaluate. The purple coded concepts on this map are our suggestions
for indicators that could be applied to monitor outputs at this level.
Map 3 focuses on the remit of another of the taskforces identified in Map 1. One
interesting point to emerge from the attempt to map the activities of this Task Force was
that, as we interpreted the remit, one of its detailed objectives (‘Satisfy industry’s needs
for appropriately trained people’) seemed to be at a higher operational level than the
Panel title/remit (‘Identify skills needs of the UK food chain and industrial crops sector’).
The links drawn on the map reflect our interpretation and this is a point which could have
usefully been developed in discussion with the taskforce about the processes of
conducting its work, and the outcomes of this work.
SUPRA NETWORK 44

Map 4 combines Map 1 (top level objectives of FCCI Panel), Maps 2 and 3 (the ‘wedges’
of objectives feeding into two of the taskforces) along with the work of the remaining
taskforces. It thus shows how the work of the six taskforces contributed to the overall
remit of the FCCI Panel. It also demonstrates where there are links from the work of one
taskforce to another. A map at this level of detail can usefully be built up during a
Foresight exercise and modified to reflect changes. A series of such maps can be kept to
chart the process of change over time.
In terms of integrating socio-economic and technological aspects of Foresight, the lower
level objectives feeding into each of the taskforces clearly show where socio-economic
concerns (e.g. increase responsiveness of the food chain to consumer concerns) are
linked to technological options (e.g. explore opportunities for technology to improve
traceability of ingredients). Using this mapping approach, each taskforce could be most
effectively integrated into the work of the taskforce itself and subsequently into the work of
the FCCI Panel as a whole.
SUPRA NETWORK 45

ITSAFE_PROJECT_INTEGRATING_TECHNOLOGICAL

Map 1 – Food Chain and Crops for Industry (FCCI) Panel: General Overview
Identify key
stakeholders
Consult stakeholders
on the future of
panel sectors
Generate action
plans
Enhance UK quality
of life and
competitiveness of
its industry
Focus on
communication in the
food chain
Focus on the future
of industrial crops
Focus on spreading
best practice
Debate on the use of
technology in the
food chain
Identify factors in
Foresight I that
helped or hindered
the Foresight
process in sector
businesses and trade
organisations
Inform efforts to
promote the benefits
of using Foresight
Define 6 task forces
Identify skills
needs of the UK food
chain and industrial
crops sector
Explore food's
contribution to
health in the future
T
SUPRA NETWORK 47

Map 2 – FCCI Panel: Task Force on Debate on the Use of Technology in the Food Chain
Link to 'Focus on
communication in the
food chain' task
force
Debate on the use of
technology in the
food chain
Explore ways for
communication
between key groups
on all technologies
... just
biotechnologyLearn from
experience of public
participation in
debates on
technology in UK and
elsewhere Consider the nature
of public trust in
food production in
future
'X' meetings held
with key groups
Communication plan
produced
Reports categorising
recent experience in
'X' countries with
different approaches
Action plan produced
for improved
communications in UK Summary of existing
research on public
trust in UK
SUPRA NETWORK 48

Map 3 – FCCI Panel: Task Force on the Future Skills Needs of the UK Food Chain and Industrial Crops Sector
Identify skills
needs of the UK food
chain and industrial
crops sector
Promote a long term
dialogue between
business and
education
Promote life long
learning
Satisfy industry's
needs for
appropriately
trained people
Promote the food
chain as an
attractive career
SUPRA NETWORK 49

Map 4 – FCCI Panel: Detailed Overview
Identify key
stakeholders
Consult
stakeholders on
the future of
panel sectors
Generate action
plans
Enhance UK
quality of life
and
competitiveness
of its industry
Focus on
communication in
the food chain
Focus on the
future of
industrial crops
Focus on
spreading best
practice
Debate on the use
of technology in
the food chain
Identify factors
in Foresight I
that helped or
hindered the
Foresight process
in sector
businesses and
trade
organisations
Inform efforts to
promote the
benefits of using
Foresight
Define 6 task
forces
Identify skills
needs of the UK
food chain and
industrial crops
sector
Explore food's
contribution to
health in the
future
Increase the
responsiveness of
the food chain to
consumer concerns
The food chain
has not met the
expectations of
all consumers
Overconme
barriers to 2-way
communication
between consumers
Recognise the
wide range of
buying patterns
of different
groups
Overcome barriers
to communication
between primary
producers, other
stages and
consumers
Explore
opportunities for
technology to
improve
traceability of
ingredients
Use plants to
produce raw
materials for
chemicals
processes
Deliver potential
benefits for the
environment
Make high value
products
Establish
economic and
environmental
potential,
barriers to trade
Communicate
benefits to
potential
customers
Develop new
markets
Consider research
and development
needed to
underpin new crop
based industrial
products and
processes
Consider how
industrial and
food crops should
be grown in
relation to one
another
Access and
implement
knowledge on best
practice
Use technology to
help future
competitiveness,
particularly
among small firms
Identify best
practice for
different
agricultural
production
systems
Develop
benchmarks to
measure how UK
businesses match
up
Identify barriers
to implementing
best practice in
the food chain
Transfer
scientific
understanding
into best
practice
Explore ways for
communication
between key
groups on all
technologies ...
just
biotechnology
Learn from
experience of
public
participation in
debates on
technology in UK
and elsewhere
Consider the
nature of public
trust in food
production in
future
Promote a long
term dialogue
between business
and education
Promote life long
learning
Satisfy
industry's needs
for appropriately
trained people
Promote the food
chain as an
attractive career
Consider how much
morescience could
find out about
the links between
science and
health
Consider how
consumers could
become informed
Influence
cultural factors
in people's
choice of food
Consider
opportunities to
improve the diet
of relevant
sectors of the
population
Consider health
benefits and
disbenefits of
existing patterns
of food
consumption
Consider
opportunities for
technologies to
substitute
healthier
ingredients and
keep food
satisfying
Consider
responsibilities
of companies in
the food chain
with respect to
the nutritional
properties of
food products
T
SUPRA NETWORK 50

References
Campbell-Kelly, Martin (2003) From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A
History of the Software Industry, MIT Press.
Caracostas and Muldur (1998) Society, The endless frontier: A European vision of
research and innovation policies for the 21st century European Commission DGXII
Science Research Development Studies EUR 17665, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Chataway, J. and Tait, J. (1993) Management of Agriculture-Related Biotechnology:
Constraints on Innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 5(4),
345-367.
Collinson, S., Fleck, J., Molina, A., Steward, J., and Williams, R. (1996) Forecasting and
Assessment of Multimedia in Europe 2010+ (FAME 2010), Final Report to European
Commission, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Cronberg, Tarja (1992) Technology in Social Sciences: the Seamless Theory, mimeo,
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 20 pp.
Dutton, W.H. (1995) 'Driving into the future of Communications? Check the Rear View
Mirror' pp, 79 - 102 in S. J. Emmott (Ed.) Information Superhighways: Multimedia
Users and Futures, London: Academic Press.
Eden, C. and Ackerman, F. (1999) Making Strategy. Sage Publications.
Elzen, B. (2001) ‘Socio-Technical Scenarios (STSc) as a new Foresight Method’ Paper to
Technology Foresight Workshop, Risø Reserarch Centre, Denmakrk, 4 December
2001
Faucheau, S et Noel, J.F. (1995) Economie des ressources naturelles et de
l’environnement, Armand Colin, Paris.
Faulkner, W. and Senker, J. (1995) Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and
Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering, Ceramics and Parallel
Computing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Forfas, (2002) Health and Life Sciences, Dublin
Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman,
p25
Geels, F. (2002) ‘Towards Socio-Technical Scenarios and Reflexive Anticipation’
Chap.13, pp. 359 – 386 in Knut H. Sørensen and Robin Williams (eds) Shaping
Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools by Edward Elgar:
Aldershot, 2002. ISBN 1 84064 649 7
Geels, F. W. (2003) ‘Towards Sociotechnical Scenarios and Reflexive Anticipation: Using
Patterns and Regularities in Technology Dynamics’ chapter 13, in Sørensen, K. H.
and Williams, R., (eds) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and
Tools, Edward Elgar: Aldershot,
Georghiou, L. (1996). The UK Technology Foresight Programme, Futures, 28(4)
Grunwald, A. (1999) Technology Policy: From Acceptance to Acceptability. The IPTS
Report, 34, 23-29. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Grupp (1993) from LS Report
Irvin, J. and Martin, B. (1984). Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. London: Pinter
Publishers
ITA, (1998) Delphi Report Austria 1: Technology Delphi 1 – Konzept und Uberblick.
Vienna: Institut fur Technik folgen – Abschatzung, 126p
Jaeckel, G.; Menrad, K.; Reiß, T. (1995). Die Zukunft des Deutschen Gesundheitswesen
aus der Sicht von Ärtzen und Experten. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI, 422 p.
Kostoff, R. N. (1997) Science and Technology Roadmaps. US Office of Naval Research,
800N Quincy St., Arlington, VA 22217.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/Kostoff/Mapweb2I.html
KPMG (2000). Nederland digitaal : Drie toekomstbeelden voor Nederland in 2030. the
Hague: 118.
Lyall, C. and Tait, J. (2003) Beyond Boundaries: The Governance of Science in Scotland.
(Submitted to Research Policy)
SUPRA NETWORK 51

Martin, B.R. & Irvine, J. (1989) Research Foresight. Priority Setting in Science, Pinter,
London and New York.
Martin, B. R. & Johnston, R. (1998) “Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National
Innovation System: Experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand”, SPRU
Electronic Working Papers Series, Paper No 14.
Menrad, K.; Agrofiotis, D.; Enzing, C. M. (1999). Future Impacts of Biotechnology on
Agriculture, Food Production and Food Processing – A Delphi Survey. Technology,
Innovation and Policy, 406, 22
Myervohld, N. (1999) Transcript of Interview given to BBC Radio 4 In Business. 11
November 1999.
New Zealand Government Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (1999)
Blueprint for Change: Government’s Policies and Procedures for its Research,
Science and Technology Investments. May 1999, http://www.morst.gov.nz
OST (1997) Winning through Foresight. Key Issues, DTI /Pub 2653/15k/3/97/NP.URN
97/609.
OST (1998a) The Future in Focus: A summary of national Foresight programmes, March
1998, Department of Trade and Industry DTI/Pub 3333/4k/3/98/NP URN 98/556
OST (1998b) Foresight. Consultation on the next round of the Foresight Programme, DTI,
March 1998, DTI/Pub 3284/50k/3/98/NP.URN 98/628.
OST (1998c) Blueprint for the next round of Foresight, DTI, December 1998 DTI/Pub
3733/65k/12/98/NP.URN 98/1032.
Rappert, B. (1999) Rationalising the Future? Foresight in science and technology policy
co-ordination, Futures, 31, 527-545.
Rip, A., Misa, T. J. and Schot, J. (Eds.) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The
approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.
Russell. S., and R. Williams (2002) Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings
and Implications of Policy, with Glossary of Social Shaping Concepts. Chapter 3,
pp. 37 - 132 in Knut H. Sørensen and Robin Williams (eds) Shaping Technology,
Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools by Edward Elgar: Aldershot,. ISBN 1
84064 649 7
Senker, J. (1999) with Balazs, K., Higgins, T., Laredo, P., Munoz, E., Santesmases, M.,
Espinosa do los Monteros, J., Poti, B., Reale, E., di Marchi, M., Scarda, A.,
Sandstrom, U., Schimank, U., Winnes, M., Skoie, H. and Thorsteinsdottir, H.,
European Comparison of Public Research Systems, TSER Project No SOE1-CT-
1036 September 1999.
Sørensen, Knut H. (1996) “Learning technology, constructing culture. Socio-technical
change as social learning” STS working Paper no 18/96, University of Trondheim:
Centre for Technology and Society.
Tait, J. (1993) Written evidence on behalf of ESRC to Report of House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology on Regulation of the United Kingdom
Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness, 7th Report, Session 1992/93.
London: HMSO HL Paper 80-I, pp187-196.
Tait, J. and Williams, R. (1999) Policy Approaches to Research and Development:
Foresight, Framework and Competitiveness. Science and Public Policy, 26(2), 101-
112.
Tait, J. and Chataway, J. (2000) Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture:
Chemicals, Biotechnology and Seeds - Zeneca Agrochemicals Monograph. Policy
Influences on Technology for Agriculture (PITA): Report to the European
Commission Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme (TSER), Project no.
SOE1/CT97/1068. Available at: http://www.technology.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/ and
http://www.supra.ed.ac.uk/NewWeb/Reports.htm
Tait, J. and Morris, D (2000) Sustainable Development of Agricultural Systems:
Competing Objectives and Critical Limits. Futures, 32, 247-260.
Tait, J., Williams, R. and Lyall, C. (2000) Roadmapping Foresight: Monitoring and
Evaluation of Complex Programmes. SUPRA Report to the Office of Science and
Technology, May 2000.
SUPRA NETWORK 52

Tait, J. (2001) More Faust than Frankenstein: the European Debate about Risk Regulation
for GM Crops. Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), 175-189
Tait, J., Chataway, J. and Wield, D. (2001) Policy Influences on Technology for
Agriculture: Chemicals, Biotechnology and Seeds - Final Report. Policy Influences
on Technology for Agriculture (PITA): Report to the European Commission Targeted
Socio-Economic Research Programme (TSER), Project no. SOE1/CT 97/1068.
Available at: http://www.technology.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/ and
http://www.supra.ed.ac.uk/NewWeb/Reports.htm
Tait, J, and Chataway, J. (2003) Risk and Uncertainty in GM Crop Development: the
Industry Perspective. Submitted to Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.
The Royal Society (1998) Foresight: response to consultation document, 4/98 October,
London: Royal Society,
ttp://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/StatementDetails.cfm?statementid=3
3
Williams, Robin (2000) “Public Choice and Social Learning: The New Multimedia
Technologies in Europe’ The Information Society: Special Issue: ICT Development
and Use in Europe, Guest Editor Robin Williams Vol. 16 No 4 Oct – Dec 2000, pp.
251 – 262
Williams, R., Stewart, J., and Slack, R., (2000) Social Learning in Multimedia: Final
Report to European Commission, DGXII, Edinburgh, RCSS: Edinburgh University.
SUPRA NETWORK 53

ITSAFE_PROJECT_INTEGRATING_TECHNOLOGICAL

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to ITSAFE_PROJECT_INTEGRATING_TECHNOLOGICAL (20)

ITSAFE_PROJECT_INTEGRATING_TECHNOLOGICAL