Pilot Project to Scope the Establishment of a European Foresight Academy

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES Pilot Project to Scope the Establishment of a European Foresight Academy EUR EN Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

2 PILOT PROJECT TO SCOPE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A EUROPEAN FORESIGHT ACADEMY MICHAEL KEENAN 1, FABIANA SCAPOLO 2 (Based on a European Science and Technology Observatory Project) November PREST University of Manchester, UK 2 JRC-IPTS, Spain Technical Report EUR EN

3 IPTS Technical Report Series, EUR EN Pilot Project to Scope the Establishment of a European Foresight Academy Authors: Michael Keenan (PREST), Fabiana Scapolo (JRC-IPTS) Seville, Spain, 2004 Published by: EUROPEAN COMMISSION Joint Research Centre IPTS- Institute for Prospective Technological Studies W.T.C. Isla de la Cartuja s/n E Seville, Spain ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels Luxembourg, 2004 The orientation and contents of this report cannot be taken as indicating the position of the European Commission or its services. The European Commission retains the copyright of this publication. Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, if the source is mentioned. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the information in this report. Printed in Spain

4 Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Getting a measure of the demand for the EFA...1 What of existing supply?... 2 Organising awareness-raising workshops... 2 Organising a methods training course... 3 Reaching out further... 3 Scenarios for a future EFA INTRODUCTION DEMAND REVIEW Defining the Scope of the Review Survey of Candidate Countries Survey of IRE/IRC Network members Interviews with Senior National Decision Makers Interviews with National Technology Programme Officers Interviews with JRC Research Managers Survey of Existing Practitioners Conclusions SUPPLY REVIEW Scope of the Supply Review Executive Education University Curricula Conclusions AWARENESS WORKSHOPS IRC/IRE Network Foresight Awareness Workshop JRC Programme Managers Awareness Workshop Recommendations REGIONAL FORESIGHT TRAINING COURSE Preparation for the course Delivering the course Recommendations THE FORESIGHT READER AND EFA WEB SITE The Foresight Reader EFA online Other promotional activities Recommendations EUROPEAN FORESIGHT ACADEMY: FUTURE OPTIONS What have we learnt from this pilot study? Content what sorts of things could a future EFA do? Structure how might a future EFA be configured? Summary conclusions ANNEXE: SUPPORTING MATERIALS... 70

5 Executive Summary This report provides an account of a pilot study carried out by ESTO to test the need for and the viability of a cross-national capacity-building activity in the area of Foresight. The study was carried out over a nine-month period by six core partners, with a further half dozen or so institutions providing support at specific times. It involved first conducting a review of Foresight training supply and demand in a number of European Union (EU) Member States and Candidate Countries. This was followed up with the organisation of a Foresight training course and two awareness workshops, and the preparation of a Foresight Reader. From the outset, the pilot study was given the name European Foresight Academy (EFA), both to reflect its pedagogical nature and to lend the project some authority and gravitas. Whether this name should be adopted for a permanent and sustainable capacity building activity is an open question. However, we recommend that any such activity be given a name that befits its ambitions to develop and nurture Foresight capabilities in an enlarged Europe. Getting a measure of the demand for the EFA The project started with a review of demand for Foresight capacity-building activities (Chapter 2). Five groups of actors were selected for the demand review, namely (1) prospective Foresight exercise managers (with a focus upon Candidate Countries); (2) IRE (Innovation Regions in Europe) network regional co-ordinators; (3) senior science and technology policy decision makers; (4) research and technology programme officers (e.g. from the EC s Joint Research Centre (JRC), national research councils and academies, etc.); and (5) existing professional Foresight practitioners. It was envisaged that each of these would want different things from the EFA: for example, we anticipated that senior decision makers would not be interested in learning about the minutiae of running a Foresight exercise. Rather, they would be interested in knowing how to interpret and use Foresight results. Likewise, existing practitioners would obviously not be interested in knowing about the basics of Foresight, but would instead expect to learn about the state-of-the-art from the EFA. The various groups were contacted through surveys and telephone interviews, with each research instrument tailored to the particular group being addressed. In all, around 50 people agreed to be interviewed across 10 European countries, whilst around 50 people responded to the various questionnaire survey instruments. Generally speaking, they were asked about how they could benefit from Foresight capacitybuilding activities and how the EFA could be configured in such a way to meet those needs. The review indicated widespread support across the board for the establishment of the EFA, with many suggestions made as to the activities it should engage in. These included: awareness-raising workshops, directed primarily at policy makers; the development of Foresight methods toolbox training courses; training courses focused upon state-of-the-art Foresight methods, including use of ICTs in Foresight; training in the management and organisation of Foresight exercises; courses on how to use (absorb) Foresight results for successful implementation outcomes; workshops where organisations can discuss the implications of Foresight results for their own policy areas, business sectors, etc.; courses for explicitly multiplying Foresight practice 1

6 through the training of trainers and teachers; the development of university courses, ranging from individual modules embedded in other courses through to full Masters programmes; and workshops where practitioners and theoreticians can meet to share ideas and experiences. What of existing supply? The demand review was followed by a review of the existing supply in Foresight training (Chapter 3). This supply review was necessarily focused upon open access executive education and academic programmes. Other Foresight capacity-building activities, such as coaching, are going on in Europe, but these are typically done by consultancy firms and remain largely invisible and ad hoc. Only a small number of regular and open executive and academic programmes were found, suggesting the need for expansion if latent demand were to be awakened. Organising awareness-raising workshops Within the context of the objectives for this pilot study, we were committed from the start to conducting at least one training course. Given the number of people who highlighted the need for foresight awareness workshops, we decided that two of these should be organised (see Chapter 4). We also organised a 3-day training course focused on Foresight methods (see Chapter 5), which was sufficiently distinctive vis-à-vis existing courses being offered elsewhere. This was targeted at prospective regional Foresight practitioners, who had expressed a strong desire for methods training in their survey responses. Taking the two awareness workshops first, these focused upon two distinct groups regional development professionals in the IRC/IRE Network and JRC programme managers. The objective for both workshops was to inform participants of what Foresight is and how it could help them in their planning and decision-making. Two sorts of presentations were therefore used: (1) general introductions to Foresight and (2) illustrative examples of Foresight in action. A mix of speakers, both from within and outside the project team, was engaged, bringing with them a wide diversity of views and experiences. Each workshop lasted for 1.5 days, with speakers typically on hand for the duration in order to answer questions. Several lessons were learnt from these two workshops and a number of recommendations have been made. On the positive side, a good mix of speakers, both from within and outside the project team, worked very well, as did the content, which was a mix of Foresight principles and case examples. As for improvements, more time needed to be given to discussion and debate. Furthermore, more imaginative workshop approaches, possibly using problem-based learning, gaming, and other participative techniques commonly found in management training, might be used to good effect in the future. On the whole, the IRC/IRE Network event was much more successful than the workshop for JRC managers, the latter being poorly attended in an unsuitable location. The former event also benefited greatly from collaboration with the IRC/IRE Network secretariat, which already knew what it wanted and was in a position to muster the interest of its community. The EFA should therefore consider limiting its 2

7 awareness-raising (and possibly its training) activities to those situations where an intermediary body can share the risks of organising and delivering events. Organising a methods training course As the centrepiece of the pilot project, a three-day course was organised at Ispra in Italy during May 2003 (Chapter 5). The course was focused on regional foresight, which was considered by the project team to be an area of emerging importance with little existing training provision. The objective of the course was to provide an intensive, practically-oriented introduction to regional Foresight methods that would be useful for those thinking about organising and managing Foresight activities in their own regions. Accordingly, the course was targeted at the beginner-intermediary level. Interest was overwhelming, with around sixty applications received for just thirty-five places. The project team decided that the course should essentially be free, with just a nominal 95 euros fee charged to cover lunches, dinner and airport transfers. The experimental and pilot status of the course meant that it would be difficult to charge a fee. The EFA project team delivered the majority of sessions, with just a few outside speakers brought in on particular topics. Inevitably, some presentations were better than others. There were probably too many presentations given the relatively short duration of the course, leaving insufficient time for practical work. Nevertheless, evaluation ratings by participants ranged between good to excellent on all aspects of the course. Participants were clearly motivated to learn and brought much energy and enthusiasm with them to the course. The beautiful surroundings and well-organised extra-curricular activities, neither of which should be underestimated, also contributed to a good and open atmosphere. As for lessons and recommendations for the future, these are numerous. They include the need for: shorter, snappier presentations and the imaginative use of ICTs, where some speakers can be beamed in remotely using video-conference facilities; better preparation of the practical sessions; more sophisticated audience targeting, which should be aided by offering a suite of courses in the future; further courses dedicated to particular methods; and acknowledgement of the limitations of any training courses, where what is really needed is coaching and/or consultancy. Furthermore, the issue of course fees needs to be studied more closely to avoid market distortion. Reaching out further The project also saw the preparation of a Foresight Reader, which was originally intended as a training course textbook (Chapter 6). However, this idea was revised to produce instead a publication that was less tied to the immediate EFA course offerings and more broadly appealing. As some good and useful Foresight guides already exist, it was decided that the EFA Reader should be a montage of excerpts and summaries of existing issues and experiences in Foresight. It covers the relevance of Foresight, as well as its historical and epistemological foundations, before providing an account of contemporary Foresight practice. It also includes a chapter on methods used in Foresight, followed by a chapter on practical lessons for managing and organising Foresight processes. The use and outcomes of Foresight is then discussed, before some illustrative examples of Foresight in Action are presented. 3

8 As well as the Reader, an EFA website was constructed to reach out beyond those immediately involved in the activities of the pilot study. It was developed primarily as a tool for making available information on forthcoming events, but was also utilised for disseminating presentations delivered at EFA events and for linking to other Foresight training provision. Scenarios for a future EFA In light of the various reviews and training workshop experiences, the possibilities for establishing a sustainable European Foresight Academy on a permanent basis are considered (Chapter 7). To begin with, several principles are set out that should inform any attempts to establish a permanent EFA. These include: the need for lean and nonbureaucratic operation; the avoidance of duplication and/or displacement of existing training or awareness-raising activities (especially those that are already offered on a commercial basis); an openness to new ideas and new people; the need for a distributed Academy, with its nodes spread across all parts of the EU28; and, finally, the need for a financially sustainable EFA with multiple sources of funding, both public and private. The possible activities of a future EFA are also discussed. These include: short courses on methods and exercise organisation; awareness-raising activities (e.g. workshops, newsletters, etc.); embedding Foresight into institutional practices; methodology development; provision of a nucleus of reference (e.g. by giving guidance on methods and approaches, by providing case studies of good practice, by setting quality standards, and by producing training materials that could be widely disseminated and deployed across Europe); and the establishment of discussion forums for mutual learning between Foresight users and practitioners. These are the possible activities for a permanent EFA to be engaged in, but it is left to the reader to make up her/his own mind as to their relative merit. To help the reader in this task, five scenarios are presented that summarise different, yet plausible, structures for the EFA. The scenarios, which have a relatively short three-year time horizon, are built around four dimensions, namely (i) the EFA s breadth of remit, (ii) the level of active involvement of the wider Foresight community in its day-to-day operation, (iii) its mode of operation, and (iv) its level and sources of funding. The first scenario, The Status Quo, assumes that no EFA or anything like it is established. It therefore describes a possible future where existing capacity-building provision slowly evolves from its current state. The second scenario, The Gazette, sees the EFA established and adding value to existing capacity-building provision. But this is a simple EFA, confined largely to being little more than an online informationsharing space. In the third scenario, The Orchestrator, again the EFA is focused upon adding value to existing provision, but is far more active in co-ordinating and strengthening these activities. For example, it is involved in cataloguing a Foresight nucleus of reference that serves a European community of trainers and practitioners. It also establishes learning partnerships between existing and aspirant training providers. In the fourth scenario, The Player, the EFA does little, if any, coordination of existing provision, but instead seeks to run its own training courses and capacitybuilding activities. Significantly, these activities seek to add value to existing capacitybuilding provision rather than displace it. Thus, the EFA is focused upon filling the 4

9 gaps left by the market for capacity-building. In the fifth and final scenario, The Impresario, the EFA takes the leading role in organising training and capacity-building initiatives in Europe. It seeks not only to coordinate existing provision, but also to deliver peer reviewed, EFA-badged training modules through dozens of centres across the EU28. Furthermore, it develops academic modules that are beginning to be used as the basis for new courses in several universities across Europe and beyond. To reiterate, no recommendations are made in light of the scenarios; rather, readers are invited to make up their own minds on the EFA they would prefer. With this in mind, feedback on the shape of a future EFA from Foresight practitioners, sponsors, trainers, and users is welcomed. In this way, it should be possible to set a broad course of action on the road to a permanent and sustainable European Foresight Academy. 5

10 1. Introduction Foresight practice today stands at a crossroads. It can develop significantly further, diffusing into ever new areas and situations. Or it can retreat as a passing fad that has had its day for the time being, with a possible return in The determining factors on the direction that will be followed are manifold, and include the demonstrable usefulness of Foresight in policy and investment decision-making, and the development of a community of practice committed to Foresight as a process. At the time of writing, such a community of practice is beginning to emerge in Europe. However, it is widely acknowledged that further capacity building will be needed if Foresight is to reach its full potential. At the same time, the ESTO network possesses a great deal of knowledge and experience in the Foresight area, with a couple of network members also accustomed to delivering Foresight training courses. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that ESTO could begin to meet the challenge of capacity-building. With this in mind, the idea of a European Foresight Academy (EFA) was born. It should be noted that capacity building refers not only to expanding Foresight practitioner skills (supply-side) but also to developing an appreciation of Foresight s benefits and limitations (demand-side) amongst potential users. An Academy therefore has to explicitly address two different communities: Practitioners who are likely to be directly involved in the implementation and design of Foresight exercises as vision-building processes at different territorial levels (i.e. international, national, regional and local) as well as in different domain areas (i.e. sectors, societal problems, organisations, e.g. single firms, etc.). Users (i.e. policy makers, civil servants, public administrators, entrepreneurs, researchers, etc ) who are interested in improving their knowledge on available Foresight exercises and on how to use Foresight outputs and processes. The primary aim of this project was to design and test a European training programme in Foresight with the final goal of establishing a permanent international programme. Taking a European perspective offers some useful opportunities: it provides a useful scale for knowledge exchange and mutual learning; it builds upon Europe s strength of diversity in Foresight; and it addresses an increasingly important European policy (and business) space. A secondary goal was to position JRC-IPTS and the ESTO network as a training reference centre in Foresight at European level. Accordingly, six ESTO partners constituted the main project team: JRC-IPTS, PREST, Fraunhofer-ISI, Futuribles, Technology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague (TCP), and Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC). Other ESTO partners also took part in supporting roles. 6

11 From this starting point, a Foresight training demand and supply review was conducted. Based on this, it was apparent that awareness-raising workshops as well as a Foresight training course would be appropriate. Accordingly, two awareness-raising workshops were organised along with a 3-day methods training course. To complement these events, a Foresight Reader was assembled and a web site created. This report provides an account of these activities, which took place during It is structured along the following lines. In the following chapter (Chapter 2), we provide an account of an extensive demand review carried out to underpin the pilot project. The objective here was to gauge the level of interest in Foresight training and other capacitybuilding measures. We then review some of the existing training provision in Chapter 3, focusing on both the executive and university training sectors. In Chapter 4, we describe the conduct of two awareness workshops organised by the EFA and reflect upon their successes and failures. We do the same thing again in Chapter 5, but this time focus upon the 3-day Foresight methods training course delivered by the EFA. Chapter 6 describes the Foresight Reader and EFA web site developed within the context of this pilot study, whilst in Chapter 7, we present some possible options for developing the EFA into a sustainable training programme for Foresight in Europe. The authors would not have been able to write this report without the support of other members of the project team. We would therefore like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Rémi Barré (Futuribles/CNAM), Kerstin Cuhls (FhG-ISI), Ken Ducatel (JRC-IPTS), Luke Georghiou (PREST), Kristina Kadlecikova (TCP), Jari Kaivo-oja (FFRC), Anna Kaivo-saari (FFRC), Karel Klusáček (TCP), Denis Loveridge (PREST), Ian Miles (PREST), Rafael Popper (PREST), and Sari Soderlund (FFRC). We would also like to thank Günter Clar (DG RTD), Fabienne Goux-Baudiment (progective), Graham May (Future Skills), Nikki Slocum (UNU-CRIS), and Victor van Rij (KNAW) for their contributions and advice. Finally, we would like to thank all those individuals and organisations who contributed to the demand and supply review, and, last but by no means least, all those who participated in EFA training events. Without their enthusiasm and feedback, nothing would have been possible. 7

12 2. Demand Review Before designing and delivering any training or awareness-raising materials, the ESTO partners decided that some sort of demand review for such services should first be carried out. It was hoped that by doing this, the project s activities could be positioned to provide true value-added. The account that follows draws upon a process that saw around 50 persons interviewed and a further 50 answering a questionnaire survey. 2.1 Defining the Scope of the Review The project team was unanimous in acknowledging the need for some sort of Foresight training demand review to be conducted. Accordingly, five potential target groups were identified through a brainstorming exercise at the project kick-off meeting: Future programme managers and those who want to become strategic futures suppliers (with a focus upon Candidate Countries). We anticipated their main question to be how do we do Foresight? IRE network regional co-ordinators. We anticipated their main question to be how can Foresight benefit my region? Introduction for senior decision makers. We anticipated their main question to be what does this mean and how do we use it? Research and technology programme officers (e.g. JRC, IPs, national research councils and academies). We anticipated their main question to be how can this help us identify emerging areas? Professional practitioners (advanced). We anticipated their main question to be what is the state-of-the-art? These five groups cover a wide range of potential beneficiaries of Foresight training, at regional, national and European level, and amongst decision-makers and Foresight practitioners. Our approach to the demand review involved a mixture of telephone interviews (for senior decision makers and research programme managers) and three questionnaire surveys (for prospective Foresight managers in Candidate Countries, existing Foresight / Futures Studies practitioners, and members of the IRE network). The interview protocols and questionnaire surveys used are attached as an annexe to this report. These instruments were all deployed during a 10-day period in mid October 2002, with almost 100 persons providing testimony (about a 50/50 balance between responses through interviews and questionnaire surveys). We present the findings for each group below. Generally speaking, we first enquired as to people s knowledge of existing or past Foresight activities in their organisations, regions or countries. We then asked how their organisation, regions, etc. might benefit from Foresight, and enquired as to the 8

13 need for Foresight training. For some groups, we went on to ask their views on the usefulness of a European-wide Foresight training programme. Interviews were kept short (typically around 20 minutes), as were questionnaire surveys. Interviewees were identified and contacted by ESTO organisations that had responded to a call for data collection services through the Fast Track facility 1. This was necessary, since local knowledge was needed to reach (1) senior decision makers in national ministries, academies and research councils, and (2) programme managers in national research bodies. In all, around 50 people agreed to be interviewed across 10 European countries, whilst around 50 people responded to the various questionnaire survey instruments. Although this number might appear to be impressive, particularly given the tight time span, we must acknowledge that only a very small sample size was in fact engaged. Moreover, given the size of the sample, as well as the tendency for interviews to be conducted with people who were already quite familiar with Foresight, it could be questioned whether the sample was even remotely representative. In defence of our research approach, we would argue that even this limited review has provided greater insight into the demand for Foresight across Europe than any other study previously conducted. Furthermore, and this is a critical point, the demand review was viewed as a process, through which the idea of a European Foresight Academy (EFA) would be promoted. So the review was as much a marketing exercise as an information-gathering task. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable to contact people who the project team anticipated might be interested in the establishment of the EFA. Table 1: Various tasks and target groups for reviewing Foresight training demand Target group Means of identification Means of contact Future Research organisations and programme ministries in Candidate survey managers and Countries the JRC-IPTS suppliers of Enlargement Futures and Foresight Spanish Presidency lists were IRE network Senior decision makers Technology programme officers Professional practitioners used as starting points Through IRE network membership Knowledge of country experts, with 2-3 key officials from each country targeted from the research and industry function (1) JRC programme managers; and (2) 2-3 Programme managers from national research bodies The project Steering Group nominated names survey Telephone interviews Telephone interviews survey Lead organisation Technology Centre Prague (TCP) Technology Centre Prague (a member of the IRE network) ESTO Fast Track groups JRC-IPTS to lead on JRC contacts; national data gathered through ESTO Fast Track funding PREST 1 Brief explanation of Fast Track 9

14 2.2 Survey of Candidate Countries For this target group, an survey was sent to 35 people in 12 Candidate Countries. From the 11 responses received, it is apparent that much national-level Foresight is either ongoing (often with the support of the European Commission) or is about to start in these countries. Reflecting the research-innovation orientation of those surveyed, it was thought that Foresight could be usefully deployed to: Involve stakeholders in policy decision making; Strengthen currently fragmented national (and regional) innovation systems; Bring technology and wider policy decisions into closer alignment; Reach greater consensus on development strategies and goals between research, business, education and policy communities; and Set strategic priorities and achievable goals. A number of potential barriers that needed to be overcome were also identified: The current lack of consensus within fragmented innovation systems. In other words, some of the problems that Foresight is said to be able to address are also thought to be significant barriers to the successful deployment of Foresight; Unfamiliarity and lack of awareness of Foresight as a concept within the wider society, but also specifically amongst policy makers; Scepticism or lack of understanding of Foresight s uses amongst policy makers and other decision makers; Difficulty in relating Foresight to existing national development programmes; Perceived lack of time to invest in activities like Foresight; Perception that Foresight is a (too?) complex activity to undertake; Insufficient skills locally available to conduct Foresight successfully; and Lack of financial resources. Finally, all respondents thought that their countries could benefit from the establishment of the EFA. Table 2 presents some of the main suggestions on what the EFA could deliver and how this might be achieved. 10

15 Table 2: Responses to the Candidate Country e-survey Potential beneficiaries of training Scientific researchers and Engineers Research Institute managers Policy makers in state ministries Regional authorities Chambers of commerce Industry Existing forecasting and TA experts Society in its entirety Users of Foresight results What the EFA could offer Introductory courses on the nature of Foresight Awareness-raising for potential users of Foresight s results Foresight toolbox (approaches and methods), including stateof-the-art tools Training in the management and organisation of Foresight Training in the practical usage and implementation of Foresight Foresight case studies from the practitioners themselves Knowledge-sharing platform How the EFA could deliver Flexibility to respond to different audiences at different levels Nationally tailored introductory courses International networks International workshops (real and virtual) International user (policy) network(s) University modules Case study library Meta-analyses of Foresight findings 2.3 Survey of IRE/IRC Network members For this target group, an survey was sent to 110 persons via the Networks Coordination Unit, with 10 replies received in the one-week response window. Only a handful of regions that responded to the e-survey had experience of deploying Foresight. Many had prepared Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS), which more often than not included some analysis of major market and technological trends over a 5-10 year time horizon, whilst others believed that something like Foresight was definitely needed in their regions. All respondents but one supported the idea of the Academy the non-supporter thought that regional development agencies were not in a position to do Foresight themselves and therefore had no need for training. Amongst the supporters, it was thought that Foresight could be usefully deployed to: Provide information on technological trends; Achieve regional consensus on R&D, technology, and innovation policy; Mobilise businesses to increase innovation efforts; Help in the elaboration of regional development plans; and Anticipate changes with a view to detecting opportunities. These rationales for regional Foresight obviously reflect the innovation orientation of IRE/IRC network members. If we had surveyed Local Agenda 21 officials or other types of groups, no doubt the rationales offered would have been quite different. This diversity needs to be borne in mind when thinking about addressing the needs of the regional Foresight training market. Returning to the e-survey, a number of potential barriers that needed to be overcome were also identified: 11

16 Lack of a culture of forward thinking; Variable time horizons within the region, with SMEs looking no further than one year, regional bureaucrats looking out five years, and politicians looking at only to the next election; Obtaining political support at the national level was deemed essential in small countries; Confusion between Foresight and forecasting; Foresight can seem too complex to policy makers who tend to prefer forecasting; Difficulties for SMEs (and others, including regional planners) to translate Foresight results into workable action plans, which requires methods and skills that are often unobtainable; Insufficient demonstration of Foresight s utility to regional development agencies and general lack of awareness amongst regional planners; Lack of time to undertake Foresight in busy work schedules; and Whilst not really a barrier, Foresight needed to be adaptable to different situations one size does not fit all, and attempts at homogenisation should be avoided. Finally, Table 3 presents some of the main suggestions on what the EFA could deliver and how this might be achieved. Table 3: Responses to the IRE Network e-survey Potential beneficiaries of training Regional partners, including researchers, business, and govt. Regional planners Managers of regional Foresight exercises Personnel of Foresight units located in large firms and organisations Intermediary organisations that serve SMEs What the EFA could offer Full range of courses, from the basics to training in the use of tools Training in the use of ICTs in Foresight A meeting place to share experiences and methods Knowledge resource for leaders to better formulate policy Training in knowledge management and exploitation techniques Tools that allow trainees to adapt Foresight to their own regions/organisations How the EFA could deliver Knowledge fairs for practitioners Knowledge transfer through participation in project consortia Specific courses for intermediaries rather than for SMEs 50/50 participation by academics and practitioners Problem based learning, with tools and methods introduced as participants need them to solve particular problems 12

17 2.4 Interviews with Senior National Decision Makers The project team decided that national experts would need to be engaged to conduct interviews with national decision makers and research managers, since they would have the requisite local knowledge on who to contact. Accordingly, the ESTO Fast Track facility was put into action, with ten groups coming forward to collect national data. Thus, ten countries were covered by the Fast Track interview call: Germany, UK, Netherlands, Greece, France, Finland, Italy, Denmark, Poland and Ireland. The questions shown in the Annexe were formulated by the project team and were intended as prompts for the telephone interviews. The interviewer was instructed to use them as general guidelines and not as direct questions. The questions could be directed at the interviewees own organisation, his/her policy or research field more generally, or even at the national system level. This broad scope was encouraged, not least so that the interviewee did not feel as though his/her own performance was under scrutiny. Interviews typically lasted for minutes. It seems that most interviewees had at least a passing knowledge of Foresight, with some extremely experienced in its use. Table 4 shows some of the main points to have emerged from interviews with national decision makers. For the most part, national ministries and agencies have developed long-term strategies or visions, sometimes looking out as far as 20 years. Some have also put in place horizon scanning arrangements, whilst a few others consult their communities on future directions. All organisations seemed to be at least familiar with Foresight, with the majority using it in some form or another. This result no doubt reflects the bias of our sample. Most of those that are already using Foresight indicated an interest in Foresight training. However, there was less interest shown in methods training than in the need to gain better understanding of how Foresight can be used by policymakers. Some of this training should be directed at policymakers themselves who need to be educated about Foresight. But this will need to be done in the context of other issues and problems training need not be in the area of Foresight per se. European level training was seen as beneficial for learning from exchange of practices across countries, but it is also apparent that some national level training provision already exists in some places. Table 4: Interview responses of decision makers Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity German Federal Structured consultation Do not conduct Ministry of with stakeholders; 15- Foresight themselves Economics and 20 year time horizon; but rely on results Technology (Energy futures reports generated by others Div) commissioned Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung (FES) policy unit (political foundation that advises the SPD, among others) Act in responsive mode to contemporary debates; informal consultations on emerging issues, but time horizon 2-3 years Interested in the results of Foresight activities but no intention to conduct their own Training Needs None, since no plans to conduct Foresight themselves Doubts the utility of an EFA for the foundation, other than as a supplier of Foresight results 13

18 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Generate visions (and help others to do so) at a national level; focused on areas with scientific orientation Foresight Directorate, UK Office of Science and Technology UK Dept of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs Dutch Research Council Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs In 2002, started a horizon scanning project, time horizon 0-20 years; highly participative and independent Scan long-term assessments developed by other Dutch bureaux and feed these into their strategic plans Used several methods and are developing a specific monitoring mechanism to continuously trace future developments and their likely implications; time horizon at least 10 years Run the national exercise but feel that they need to obtain a broader picture on tools and methods and their applicability in different situations Familiar with scanning techniques and scenarios, but would like to know much more about the Foresight toolbox Not their task to conduct Foresight in what is a clear division of labour in the Netherlands. This is the task of others Have conducted several Foresight exercises over the last decade using a variety of approaches; generally positive experience, although justification for using Foresight must always be made Training Needs Would be interested in sending new staff on courses; also interested in existing staff learning new techniques and gaining knowledge of practical case studies Very supportive of EFA idea, and would probably send a number of people for training; EFA should focus on use of tools, awareness raising, and problem based learning; keen for EFA to constitute a network for practitioners and theoreticians alike Given extensive Foresight experience in the Netherlands, they cannot see the usefulness of training; also thought that the use of the label Academy was inappropriate this should be the preserve of scientific bodies Interested in training and experience sharing, especially with regards to translation of Foresight results into action; level at which to conduct Foresight (granularity); exchange of practical experiences in Europe 14

19 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Greek national Foresight exercise launched in 2002 with 2015 and 2021 time horizons; focus on 11 sectors and 4 horizontal areas; rationale concerns the growing complexity of innovation policy (in terms of uncertainties, growing number of actors involved, and growing internationalisation) Greek decision makers French decision makers Finnish Ministry of Education Strategic plans with four year time horizons in INRA; Institut Pasteur carries out strategic reviews, which are highly participative; the Ministry of Research does not have a strategy as such, but rather defines policy A long-term vision and strategic plan have been drafted in consultation with all parts of the Ministry An earlier national Foresight exercise, based on a Delphi approach, was carried out a decade ago; latest exercise will see greater reliance on scenario methods; continuing barrier is the novelty of Foresight in Greece; decision makers think that research institutes need to adopt Foresight to avoid drifting Foresight exercises conducted to address specific horizontal issues in INRA, and a new 20 year Foresight exercise has started, which is very participative and focused upon building a vision for INRA; No formal exercises in the Institut Pasteur, but strategic prospective is now part of the culture at the Directorate level; no Foresight exercises at the Ministry of Research and reliability of the approach questioned Believe there is a place for using scenarios and other Foresight methods, especially as people s busy routines tend to drive them to short-term outlooks Training Needs The need for training at the systemic level is recognised and a national programme offering awareness raising and methods training is to be launched in 2003; the EFA could allow for exchange with other countries and the identification of success and failure factors There are already many training seminars in France and a good supply of specialists; what is needed is some way to better relate Foresight with strategic analysis and planning; training need not be in the area of Foresight per se, but rather in getting researchers to better understand the new environment and the need for linkages with society Training in the contextual use of Foresight tools; knowledge sharing on anticipated obstacles; top managers in the Ministry need to be got on board 15

20 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity They have five-year strategic visions, although one Centre had a 2010 vision on its use of Foresight! Finnish Employment and Economic Development Centres Parliament of Finland Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research Polish decision makers Ministry of Science, Polish Academy of Knowledge, Polish Agency for Entrepreneurship Development Has its own Committee for the Future, which lobbies the govt. to produce futureoriented studies and then approves these No formalised process for generating longterm visions Strategic plans, but these do not go beyond five years horizon; Polska Committee existed since 1969 produces visionary reports concerning Polish sciences; SWOT analysis widely used but little else Foresight activities in the Centres started in 1998; the objectives are to anticipate relevant changes, shape desirable futures, and to inform current decisions; activities are organised at different levels, using scenarios, expert panels, cluster analysis, and megatrends; biggest obstacles are the short-term nature of public administration Orders its own Foresight studies from the best specialists in their fields Sponsors of the Italian national Foresight exercise coordinated by Fondazione Rosselli; but they are unfamiliar with the methods and tend to outsource such work All familiar with Foresight due to national and EU conferences, with a few universities now also incorporating foresight training in their programmes; lack of funds has meant little Foresight being conducted; need for a Foresight Commission (central point) to promote application of Foresight and use of its results Training Needs experts have already been trained, but this is insufficient, since all society should be engaged in Foresight (especially enterprises, schools, municipalities). Therefore, the task of training is vast The Parliament does not require Foresight training but ministerial officials need training in Foresight and strategic planning There is a strong need for their admin officers to become acquainted with Foresight so they would be very interested in using EFA s training programmes Perception of need for foresight training in all Polish ministries, with focus on methods and tools; targets should be higher and middle level managers; study tours and postgraduate courses preferred 16

21 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Enterprise Ireland Three year plans; have Familiar with developed sector Foresight but scenarios looking out consider it to be too 10 years complex; the addedvalue doesn t justify the effort Irish Health Research Board Irish Dept of Agriculture and Food Forfas, Ireland Recently went through a consultative strategic process that resulted in a five year plan around which current policy is based A regular 3-year rolling plan drawing on SWOT and panel analysis, as well as consultation within and outside the Dept; Agri- Food 2010 Committee worked in 1999; FAPRI-Ireland modelling of trends to inform policy on CAP reform Generated a 5-10 year vision that is annually reviewed; vision generated internally by small groups examining particular issues Familiar with Foresight concept and think it should be used more Agri-Food 2010 and FAPRI-Ireland work considered to be Foresight; but barriers to Foresight exist, notably a lack of awareness and relevant skills; shortness of political horizons also a barrier Responsible for Irish national Technology Foresight Exercise which has had a major impact on Irish SET scene; no plans for exercise to be repeated or for the processes to be institutionalised Training Needs Welcome training on methods, time frames, etc.; interested in knowing how Foresight compares to other planning tools Very keen on training; focus should be on getting people to think outside of their normal mindset and to appreciate other viewpoints Training in specific analytical skills like economical and Foresight analysis would be useful; training should be available to other Irish ministries too; Dept of Finance organised a seminar on Strategic Futures Thinking in Oct 2002 targeted at the public sector Foresight should take account of socioeconomic as well as S&T issues and acknowledge new forms of governance of science; if this were the case, then a demand for training would emerge among many Irish govt departments 2.5 Interviews with National Technology Programme Officers The same process as that deployed in eliciting views from senior decision makers was also used to obtain inputs from technology programme officers. National research programme managers were interviewed across the same 10 countries by the same Fast Track centres. In addition, JRC-IPTS contacted programme managers across the JRC in order to gain an insight into demand at European level. Those interviewed tended to be from research councils, national laboratories, science ministries, and even universities. 17

22 Few, if any, are performing scientists; rather, they are mostly advisors and strategists responsible for large-scale research programmes and/or facilities. Table 5 shows some of the main points to have emerged from interviews with national research programme managers. For the most part, Foresight has been little used by those organisations surveyed. Strategic plans, often drawing upon consultation processes, are near-ubiquitous, with time horizons typically around five years. Familiarity with Foresight is high, a few institutes having organised their own exercises, though most are just aware of other exercises and their results. About a third of those surveyed are interested in using Foresight, but for the others, there was scepticism as to its usefulness and/or acceptance by scientists. Despite this mixed picture, there was near unanimity on the need for raising awareness of Foresight. This was expressed in terms of adapting Foresight to local issues and concerns, focusing upon the absorption of Foresight results, and generally demonstrating the relevance of Foresight. About two-thirds of those surveyed also indicated the usefulness of training in Foresight methods and tools. As for the EFA, this was mostly viewed as a useful forum for exchange of good practices and experiences from across Europe. The EFA was therefore seen as being potentially useful to the theoretical and methodological development of Foresight, although two interviewees expressed concern that the EFA should not attempt to standardise and homogenise approaches to Foresight in Europe. There has to be room for innovation and diversity. Table 5: Interview responses of national research managers Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Wissenschaftsrat Conduct crossthematic Have conducted a (German Science studies for all small pilot study and Council) levels of German govt. supported a with a view to Foresight identifying structural conference; familiar deficits; time horizon with Foresight world determined by current and sees potential to needs and issues deploy the process in Volkswagen Foundation (Germany) Rely upon search conferences to identify areas for support the Council No intention to conduct own Foresight but they do look at results of other Foresight activities to inform their work Training Needs General training on methods; emphasis on adaptability of Foresight to own concerns and organisation; guidance on when to use Foresight (and when not to use it) Exposure of young researchers in the Foundation to Foresight approaches used elsewhere, to see how others do things; this could also improve absorption of Foresight results; but is an Academy dedicated solely to Foresight really required? 18

23 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Wellcome Trust The Unit supports Did some Foresight Policy Unit (UK) planning of the Trust s work 7-8 years ago portfolio and gathers but not recently; intelligence, mostly very interested in reengaging through workshops (esp. in and seminars horizon scanning) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (UK) Greek research managers French research managers Finnish research managers Has just carried out wide consultation on 10 year vision for biosciences funding; drafts five year strategies, again consulting the community through workshops and reports Dependency on EC money for research means that the Greek system rarely looks beyond five years and that futures thinking is confined only to desk researchers Strategic four-year action plans have been developed in interviewees institutes Five yearly strategic visions are common Does not do its own Foresight work; looks to others to provide inputs, e.g. national Foresight A national Foresight exercise is underway; but doubts on usefulness of Foresight approach within research performing institutions Hardly a space for Foresight, since scientists believe they are on top of developments in their fields. But one interviewee thought that the need for scientific prospective existed Several Foresight exercises have been conducted over the years Training Needs Very interested in participating in the EFA; would like EFA to provide training in use of latest tools and to act as a forum for exchange of good practice and experiences No training needs; they would outsource to PREST/SPRU if they needed Foresight skills; EFA should avoid trying to homogenise Foresight Difficulty in seeing how Foresight could be usefully deployed in organisations led to some scepticism of the benefits of training; the EFA could encourage exchange of experiences with emphasis on difficulties in applying Foresight Need to demonstrate relevance of Foresight for a research program or institute; notion of Foresight is of a collective undertaking, which is often at odds with researchers view of what they do Tools and techniques in Foresight; issues in stakeholder management 19

24 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity They don t have a long-term strategic vision of their own but rely on the articulation of vision from researchers to inform their programmes Italian National Research Council (CNR) Danish research managers Polish research managers Framework Programme NCP, Polish Acadeny of Sciences, University of Mining, Krakow, Ministry of Economy, Polish Agency for Entrepreneurship Development Long-term strategic plans underpinned by Foresight exercises are common to all four institutes examined Visionary documents have been drafted and implemented, especially in the university sector Foresight has not been used mainly due to cultural barriers: lack of awareness of Foresight, insufficient skills, and the policy making process, which is marked by bargaining rather than strategic vision. But they are very interested in trying to use Foresight Use of Foresight is a relatively new development and not yet widespread in Denmark. So far, experiences have been mixed; but some problems have included the need for better understanding of industry and techno dynamics and greater skill in the use of Foresight tools There is awareness of Foresight but it is little used; several case studies relevant to Polish circumstances described in a tutorial style would make Foresight much more popular Training Needs CNR (and other institutes ) researchers could benefit from Foresight training (basic approach and methods), so that their research choices could become more rational and systematic An exchange of Foresight researchers between institutes would be very valuable. Employees in the institutes surveyed had all undergone training in the use and mgt of Foresight techniques. One concern was that the EFA could stifle innovation as it strides for standardisation in its attempts to formalise a training programme; but another interviewee thought that the EFA offered a good forum for theoretical and methodological developments Overall, training needs within the institutes were not regarded as a priority. Rather, Foresight training should be provided by tertiary level education. Thus, the EFA could support university course development 20

25 Interviewee Visioning/Futures Foresight Familiarity Teagasc (Irish Teagasc 2000 Familiar with Agriculture and document set out the Foresight but Food Development organisations longterm believes that a big Authority) vision and was shift in thinking in the basis for its current the agriculture sector 5-year plan; was the is needed for people result of a process to be interested involving panels and SWOT analysis, among other methods Training Needs First necessary to create an awareness of the usefulness of Foresight and then provide the training to develop the core competencies for using the methods 2.6 Interviews with JRC Research Managers JRC-IPTS conducted interviews with JRC Research Managers using the same interview protocol as was used at the national level. The majority of JRC institutes have a 5-year work programme that is related to the time horizon of the Framework Programme and they lack a long-term strategy (10 years). This type of short-termism is mainly due to the financing mechanisms of the EC as well as to the need to be able to quickly react to client/policy requests. As for futures thinking, conferences and workshops, as well as personal contacts, are considered the principal sources of information on future scientific developments. Internal activities involving all staff are sometimes organised, with a strong leading role for senior managers (directors and heads of unit). In general, institutes seem to not use systematic analysis and techniques to anticipate future threats and opportunities that could affect their work. What is frequently missing is the big picture, covering the social, political and economic dimensions of S&T through a cross-disciplinary approach. As for prioritisation, Directors of the institutes, heads of unit and senior staff members take part in the prioritisation process of the institute s strategic objectives. As well, external demands from policy makers may influence the priorities of the institute. Strategic priorities are then translated in forms of resource allocation to the priority projects. Foresight is perceived as a tool to improve resources use and efficiency. Familiarity with Foresight techniques is generally quite low. In some cases, JRC institutes rely on prospective analyses that are outsourced to specialised consulting companies. As for the usefulness of Foresight training, this is judged to be needed mainly to complement the scientific and technological excellence that is present in JRC institutes with a more general view of socio-economic determinants and trends that affect the future of research and its priorities. In other words, it is important that JRC institutes support policy demands, but they also have to follow scientific trends and maintain their knowledge and scientific excellence. Following interviewees suggestions, Foresight training should cover: Overall Foresight methodology; Preparation and management of Foresight exercises; Identification of research priorities; 21

26 Development of horizontal and cross-disciplinary projects; and Preparation and management of pilot studies on topics such as health, biomedicine, nuclear, GMOs, food safety, etc. It was suggested that a pilot training course should aim to train trainers, thereby generating a multiplier effect for further use of Foresight techniques at project level. It was anticipated that persons from each JRC institute could participate at the training course (2-3 persons per unit). This should include staff members that have coordinating roles and are involved in project design and preparation. It was believed important that people delivering the training course should also have some knowledge of the specialities of the participating JRC institutes in order to better focus the activity. 2.7 Survey of Existing Practitioners An survey was sent out to 43 well-known Foresight practitioners in October 2002 with 23 replies received after one week, the survey cut-off point. In addition, a further four individuals who came to hear about the survey expressed their support for the EFA within this one-week time frame. The Annexe shows the questions included in the survey only three of these are relevant to our current discussion, i.e. who could benefit from training, what further training should be provided, and how they hoped to benefit themselves from the EFA. Answers to the other questions posed in the survey have informed other parts of this report, notably Chapter 7. Dealing with each of these three questions in turn: Question A: Who, in your view, could most benefit from Foresight training? Please justify your answer, indicating possible mechanisms for enrolling such groups into Foresight training programmes. Here, several potential targets and rationales were identified: Foresight exercise managers and facilitators, e.g. panel chairpersons, technical secretaries, Foresight project managers, etc. Such people can be found at multiple governance levels and in many different sorts of institutions. They would tend to be trained within the context of a Foresight exercise; University students and professors. There are many academic areas where Foresight training would be useful (some people would argue that all academic programmes could benefit by including Foresight training). The most obvious examples include planners, designers, public sector managers, risk analysts, competitive intelligence analysts, etc. At the same time, Foresight itself could benefit from learning things from these and other fields; Technology policy decision makers at regional, national and EU level, to help them understand the value of Foresight as a strategic tool and to use it for programme design; Wider public policy decision makers in all fields of policymaking, a greater understanding of the value of Foresight as a strategic tool is needed. For example, strategic planners can become more aware of broader alternatives and how to deal with them using Foresight, as well as checking the interaction of 22

27 vision, goals, and strategies. Awareness raising events targeted at ministers and their policy teams were suggested by a number of respondents decisionmakers need to be sufficiently trained to understand the utility of foresight without necessarily being able to conduct it; Corporate strategic planners, who could benefit from access to and use of Foresight results. They could also benefit from being shown how to tailor Foresight methodologies to their individual needs. Existing training and support services and associations could help with the latter; Other stakeholders, e.g. third sector organisations. Public and advocacy groups, including NGOs, could benefit from greater understanding of the changes in their environment, as well as more explicit development of shared goals. Familiarity with and use of Foresight tools could help here; Researchers and policy advisors, since they are the ones who need to be able to convince decision makers of the utility of Foresight; and Futurists and other developers of the Foresight field see below. As an antidote to this positive endorsement of training programmes, one well-known Foresight practitioner and theoretician made the following remark: It is easy to jump to the conclusion that creating a significant difference in public and private sector orientations to the future and to understanding the meaning and implications of technology and other drivers is a matter of learning a few scenario methods. However, such a change requires both significant competence and underpinning social institutions, i.e. policy mechanisms. Thus the question you pose is rather trivial compared to the real issue, and until the bigger question is addressed, recruitment and take up of significant foresight training will be expensive to administer and difficult to sell. We will take up this point in Chapter 7 when we come to consider future options for the EFA. Question B: In light of your answers above, what further Foresight training provision would you like to see? And how could a European Foresight Academy be configured to meet this training agenda? The following were identified as areas where training was said to be needed: Guidelines on different approaches to Foresight and their adaptation to particular contexts; developing the meaning and contexts of Foresight in different use domains; and evaluating the effectiveness of various approaches. In this sense, the EFA was imagined as a nucleus of reference that would aid the evolution of the Foresight field; Project management of Foresight exercises, which may draw upon conventional project management training; Training in the use of online tools and the state of the art; Engaging policy makers by explaining what foresight is and what it implies. This will mean providing practical examples of Foresight application and clearly making understood its utility; 23

28 Promoting the utility of Foresight to those who write EU project proposals and who are supposed to include Foresight in them; such training should also be extended to the EU funding community that decides on successful proposals; and Introduction of Foresight into school and university curricula. The EFA was imagined by many as an organisational platform for developing and coordinating Foresight training at decentralised national/regional levels. Decentralised centres might include existing local education and training providers who would use centrally developed materials. There would also be extensive horizontal collaboration between centres. Decentralisation would probably mean that most courses could be offered in the local language rather than just English. It was clear to many that courses should come in many shapes and sizes, would address different issues, and would be targeted at different groups. The important thing was that they should be offered regularly, e.g. through annual summer schools, etc. Some respondents hoped for the establishment of a virtual university that would make extensive use of the internet and e-learning tools, though any modules offered would have to be fully accredited through an internationally accepted system. Question C: How would you (and/or your organisation) hope to benefit from a European Foresight Academy? For example, could you envisage such an Academy providing mutual learning on state-of-the-art methods? Respondents were unanimous in their support for the EFA, suggesting a number of ways that they and the Foresight community might benefit from such an organisation. For example, the EFA could: Create the space for exchange of knowledge and practice. In particular, it would allow for mutual learning, especially on state-of-the-art methods and the use of new online tools. It could even constitute a space for research collaboration; Provide insights into how the community might improve on what it is already doing and essentially advance standards; Provide greater visibility and therefore acceptance of Foresight more widely. This could increase the demand for training and see more funds available for this task; Broaden views of what Foresight is and what it is supposed to do. There is a diversity of cultural, historical, social and disciplinary contexts for using Foresight in Europe, and the EFA offers the possibility for these to be better understood and mutually appreciated. Help to normalise the academic status of Foresight in universities. This might also increase the scope for Foresight to learn from other disciplines and vice versa; Generate regular documentation, such as teaching aids, and organise events, such as training workshops. In other words, the EFA would offer some sort of regular and stabilised supply of materials and events that people and organisations could depend upon; 24

29 Provide support for embryonic localised activities. Such support might be in the form of providing teaching materials, attending meetings, and providing guest speakers at local events. More ambitiously, support could also take the form of being able to offer some sort of accreditation to local training centres; Provide a focal point for practitioners and scholars to meet and to learn from one another. This could help to clarify and develop the theoretical basis of Foresight and its concomitant techniques; Provide a register of expertise and experiences. This may be provided already, at least in part, by the planned Foresight Map being organised by DG RTD. Once up and running, the latter should be reviewed to gauge whether it meets these expectations; and Provide sufficient scale at the European level that is mostly absent at the national level. As one leading German practitioner put it, Since there is only a very small Foresight community in Germany, mutual learning on the European level could be tremendously helpful for us. 2.8 Conclusions Notwithstanding the bias in our review sample, the results of the study show an overwhelming level of demand for Foresight training, well beyond the expectations of the project team. Several possible course offerings were subsequently suggested, including: 1. Awareness-raising workshops, directed primarily at policy makers, but also directed at scientists and EU project proposal writers, e.g. those intending to submit Integrated Project proposals under FP6 2. Foresight methods toolbox training, covering some of the main methods 3. Training courses focused upon state-of-the-art Foresight methods, including use of ICTs in Foresight 4. Training in the management and organisation of Foresight exercises, similar to the courses offered by PREST and UNIDO (see Chapter 3) 5. Courses on how to use (absorb) Foresight results for successful implementation outcomes 6. In addition, workshops where organisations can discuss the implications of Foresight results for their own policy areas, business sectors, etc. 7. Wider courses, for instance, directed at a particular domain area (e.g. urban regeneration) or issue (e.g. the new governance of science), with Foresight embedded within them 8. Courses for explicitly multiplying Foresight practice through the training of trainers (e.g. staff in business support programmes) and teachers (e.g. secondary school teachers) 9. University courses, ranging from individual modules embedded in other courses through to full Masters programmes 10. Incorporation into school and college curricula 25

30 11. Workshops, rather than training courses (or conferences, where there is rarely any intimacy), where practitioners and theoreticians can meet to share ideas and experiences Of course, lots of demand does not necessarily translate into a need to establish a European Foresight Academy. Yet, there also seems to be widespread support across the board for the establishment of the EFA, its potential responsibilities ranging from the supply of teaching materials for decentralised training centres across the Member States though to the EFA constituting a virtual university. In fact, there are few discernible differences in opinion on the sorts of training needed across the various groups canvassed. The only main difference seems to be the marked interest of existing practitioners and theoreticians to have Foresight and Futures Studies more institutionalised into the academic world. Most obviously, this takes the form of Foresight courses being offered at universities. But for the other target groups consulted in this review, embedding Foresight in universities was much less of a concern. Within the context of the objectives for this pilot study, we were committed from the start to conducting a training course, but now the choice seemed bewildering, at least in theory. In practice, however, we had to be pragmatic. This meant choosing from the top end of the list above. We decided that at least one awareness workshop should be organised, given the number of people who highlighted this as a need. Ultimately, two such workshops were held (see Chapter 4). We also organised a 3-day training course focused on Foresight methods (see Chapter 5), which was sufficiently distinctive vis-àvis existing courses being offered elsewhere. This was targeted at prospective regional Foresight practitioners, who had expressed a strong desire for methods training in their survey responses. From the outset, we were also committed to producing an accompanying Course Manual. The demand review saw this mentioned only a few times, but it was naturally assumed by the project team that face-to-face training should be accompanied by background literature. We slightly modified the idea of a course manual to produce instead a Foresight Reader. This was intended to be more general and reusable than a course manual, though pitched at an intermediate rather than beginner level. All in all, the demand review provided extremely useful intelligence. It also lent the EFA much-needed publicity right from the start. Moreover, the results of the demand review have been useful for justifying the decisions taken in the project, especially regarding the choice of target audience and the training formats used. 26

31 3. Supply Review Obtaining a sense of likely demand for Foresight capacity-building activities, such as training and awareness workshops, provides only half of the picture. It is also necessary to get a measure of existing supply of Foresight training, not only to identify gaps in provision, but also to learn from current capacity-building practice. This chapter therefore looks at existing training provision in Europe, covering both the executive education and the university sectors. 3.1 Scope of the Supply Review The supply review focused on the teaching of Foresight its principles, its methodologies, and the uses to which it might be put. It did not include other capacitybuilding activities, such as conferences or coaching. The latter is an interesting case there are many suppliers of coaching in Foresight, coming mostly from private sector consultancy companies. Such coaching services more often than not include a significant training component, but their main focus is usually the establishment and facilitation of a Foresight process in a single organisation. Indeed, any training offered by such suppliers is nearly always closed to anyone other than the immediate paying customer, which is normally a company or public sector organisation. The training courses we cover in our supply review are, by contrast, open to anyone to join, though usually for a fee, and are organised on a regular basis (as opposed to one-off training events for single clients). We have split the review into two parts, one part focusing on executive education, the other on university courses. Executive education courses are normally short courses (typically 2-5 days) offered to policy makers, managers, and entrepreneurs. They tend to be practically focused on methods and use of Foresight. University courses are much longer and can result in undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications. They tend to be more philosophically based, although also quite practical. Our methodology has been simple we asked existing Foresight practitioners surveyed for the demand review to tell us about any training courses currently being offered. After reviewing this data, as well as drawing upon our own knowledge of current activities, we chose to feature the institutions below. Information on the activities outlined has been collected mostly through the internet and personal contacts. Finally, we would not want to claim that the whole picture of training provision in Europe has been captured here, but we do believe that many of the main activities have been covered. 3.2 Executive Education We have identified four organisations that offer training programmes that meet our supply review criteria of open access courses: Futuribles, PREST (Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology) at the University of Manchester, Z_punkt (Büro 27

32 für Zukunftsgestaltung), and UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organisation). Each is described below. Futuribles Futuribles is an independent, private organisation. Its overall aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the contemporary world and, using an approach that is strongly interdisciplinary and forward-looking, to explore possible futures (in French: futurs possibles ), the issues involved, and the policies and strategies that might be adopted. Futuribles International organises training seminars on the concepts and methods of monitoring and forecasting, and also on the futures studies approach applied to geopolitical and socio-demographic fields, amongst others. Futuribles offers two types of training activities: Public (open) seminars on the concepts and methods applied in prospective and technology watch studies, and seminars related to applied prospective on specific fields such as socio-demographic and geopolitical issues. In general the training seminars last for two-days with a limited number of participants in order to have an interactive environment where participants can express their particular interests on the issues. In addition Futuribles offers seminars on-demand to organizations, industries and public authorities at national and local level. The training activities on Foresight methods and tools are organised in cooperation with CNAM (Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Metiers) and its research laboratory (LIPSOR Laboratoire d Investigation de Prospective, Stratégie et Organisation). The delivery of the course is shared by the two organisations. This training allows participants to get familiar with the techniques used in Foresight studies, starting from the theoretical background but also through the presentation of practical cases of Foresight studies conducted at territorial and sectoral (i.e. firms) levels. In addition, this type of seminar delivers to its participants the key elements that are necessary to carry out a prospective exercise and to implement strategic choices in an organisation. PREST, University of Manchester PREST (Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology) is a department of the University of Manchester that specialises in science, technology and innovation policy and processes. Since 1999, it has run an annual one-week course in foresight, targeted at those who will be managing foresight activities. Course participants have come from more than thirty countries over this time. The course covers every aspect of foresight activity including: The importance of the sponsors role throughout in setting objective and identifying target audiences; The organisation and management of the different ways in which the activity can be carried out; The theoretical underpinnings of foresight processes; 28

33 The choice of methods to be used, which has a major influence on the costs, organisation, credibility and usefulness of the activity; Reporting and interpretation, including the use of prioritization; and Implementing the outcome in the company and the public sphere. The course is residential and is organised around parallel streams of lectures and practical work that enables participants to experience the relevance of each lecture and the realities of foresight activity. In the past, participants have been able to use this hands on experience to plan foresight activity which they have implemented on returning to their own countries or companies. New features are incorporated into the course each year to present PREST's and other s work in shaping the development of foresight activity. Z_punkt Founded in 1997, Z_punkt GmbH Büro für Zukunftsgestaltung (Agency for Shaping the Future) is a think tank specialised in scientific futures studies. It offers multiple services to public and private sector organisations, including environmental scanning and scenario development. Since 2003, it has established the Z_foresight academy, which is intended to be a building block for the establishment of a qualified training institution for future studies in Germany. In the long run, they aim to create a postgraduate course for future studies. But for the moment, they offer two-day training workshops that target professionals in executive management, strategic marketing, business management, innovation, R&D, and personnel management. Several such workshops have been held in 2003, focusing on things like the methods of futures studies and the applications of scenarios for strategy development. UNIDO Within the context of its Regional Initiative on Technology Foresight (TF) for Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Newly Independent States (NIS), UNIDO has sought to strengthen and develop national and regional Foresight capabilities. Accordingly, a series of specific training courses has been developed, loosely modelled on the PREST short course. Training courses are grouped in three modules with different target audiences. Module one: Training courses for organisers of national or regional Foresight exercises. These courses provide participants with the basic knowledge on application of Foresight tools in strategic decision making for technological development, modalities of implementation of Foresight initiatives, available Foresight methodologies, and Foresight experience and prospects in the CEE/NIS region. Courses last for five days with leading international experts delivering lectures and practical sessions on (1) principal foresight experiences and good practices; (2) case studies as a reference and inspiration for organising foresight exercises; (3) guided hands-on exercises in organising foresight programmes; and (4) networking of experts and institutions in the region for Foresight initiatives. This module has been run twice so far, first in Budapest (2001) and more recently in Ankara (2003). An accompanying textbook has also been prepared for Module 1. Partners from the EFA project team, 29

34 namely PREST and Fraunhofer-ISI, were instrumental in designing and delivering these courses. A third course is likely to run in Module two: Training courses for Foresight practitioners who are likely to conduct exercises. The main objective here is to provide participants with the knowledge of technology foresight tools as well as hands-on experience in applying such tools and methodologies to address strategic questions and decisions such as: What technologies are likely and/or desirable to be dominant in national or regional economy? What priorities should national research and development programmes feature? Where should the budget for publicly funded research and development be allocated? What skills and competencies should be developed for the future? What will be the demand of society for industrial products, services, food, housing, health care, education, life style and welfare over the next 10 years? Thus far, this module has been run only once in Prague during It, too, lasted for five days. Three partners from the EFA project team Technology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences (TCP), PREST, and Fraunhofer ISI were together responsible for delivering about two-thirds of the course content. A course textbook has been prepared for Module 2, again drawing upon EFA partners expertise. It covers the use of some of the main methods used in Foresight exercises, including scenarios, Delphi, expert panels, critical technologies, brainstorming, trend analysis, and technology road mapping. This course is likely to be repeated in 2004, again with TCP as the hosts. Module three: Training coursers for decision-makers involved in Foresight exercises. This module has been organised twice in Moscow in late 2003 and consists of a single-day workshop with an emphasis on the practical use of Foresight results. In the first workshop, national decision-makers were the target group, in the second, regional decision-makers. Both modules had speakers from Germany, the UK, and Russia, with presentations on existing experiences and their utility. All training courses are hosted by a CEE/NIS institution that is looking to develop its own capacity to deliver similar training courses in the future. Indeed, this is one of the main aims of the UNIDO courses to develop a Foresight training capacity across the CEE/NIS region that can act as a multiplier for Foresight practice. With this in mind, UNIDO are about to embark upon the design of distance learning training modules. The exact shape and content of these courses has yet to be determined at the time of writing, but they will be built around the extensive material UNIDO have already gathered (and paid for) over the last four years. Initially, courses will be offered only in Russian and English, with the Distance Learning Centre at the Technical University of Ukraine in Kyiv responsible for rolling-out courses. This should be achieved by mid The material may then be translated into other major languages, probably French, Spanish, and Mandarin initially, for delivery from other centres around the world. 30

35 3.3 University Curricula We have identified three university programmes that meet our supply review criteria: the Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Metiers (CNAM) in Paris, the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, and the Finland Futures Academy in Turku. Each is described below. We are also aware of programme developments currently taking place at PREST at the University of Manchester, the Freie Universitaet Berlin, and the newly established Futures Academy at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Moreover, there are several centres around Europe that offer lectures on Foresight and futures studies, but these are part of wider programmes and have not been included here. Examples include the University of Alicante, the University of Deusto in San Sebastian, the Budapest Futures Research Centre, and the Universitatea Babes-Bolyai in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. For further information on these programmes, see the Australian Futures Institute (AFI) International Survey of University Futures Courses. 2 LIPSOR, Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Metiers The Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Metiers (CNAM) is a higher education and research public institution, under the supervision of the Ministries of Education and Research. CNAM awards its own government-recognised degrees as well as national degrees ranging from two to five years higher education duration. For more than ten years, a research laboratory on prospective, strategy and organisation (LIPSOR Laboratoire d Investigation en Prospective Stratégie et Organisation) has been operating in CNAM. The laboratory is chaired by Prof. Michel Godet, a leading figure in the French tradition of Foresight, la prospective. The research programme of LIPSOR is built around six main topics: prospective, strategic management and organisation; organisation, information systems and organisational changes; epistemology and methodologies of strategic prospective; prospective management of human resources; global scenarios environment and local development; and prospective and technological evaluation. Since 1982, LIPSOR has been one of the main European centres of teaching and research on Foresight. The department delivers courses of 80 to 100 hours duration on different prospective issues such as: prospective methods and strategic analysis; strategic prospective: research and application; prospective and evaluation of research and technology; environmental prospective, sustainable development and strategy of enterprises; and territorial prospective. Courses participants receive at the end, after submission of essays, certificates that are valid to a degree on management. Finally, LIPSOR also offers a PhD programme on Prospective, strategy and organisation. The doctoral training is organised within a partnership network with other French universities and research laboratories. 2 REF 31

36 The Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome The Faculty of Social Sciences at the Gregorian University of Rome offers a course on Social and Human Foresight delivered by Professor Eleonora Barbieri Masini. This course concentrates more on the epistemological, philosophical and ethical aspects of Foresight. For example, themes such as philosophical and ethical aspects of Foresight and prospective studies and their relations with science, values, experts responsibilities taking part in Foresight studies, Foresight limitations and cultural aspects related with Foresight are considered and taught. The course also provides modules on the methods and techniques used in Foresight, and critical analyses of the most recent Foresight studies, their outcomes and their impacts. As this course is only one subject among others to obtain the degree on Social Sciences, it is not separately certified. However, it is possible, after having passed the exam at the end of the course, to choose this subject for the doctoral programme of the Gregorian University. Finland Futures Academy Finland Futures Academy (FFA) is composed of a national network of universities aimed at facilitating academic educational and research programmes into futures studies. The co-ordinating unit of FFA is the Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC) in Turku, a project partner in this EFA pilot. The courses offered involve modules of intensive training and distance learning and are available for students either as a part of other futures studies modules or as supplementary studies within the specific orientation of an M.A. degree. Courses are carried out by member universities with the FFA giving them learning facilities such as study planning, conducting and evaluation service, study materials, virtual learning surrounding and video and audio sessions. In addition, FFA develops adult education modules for the continuing education centres etc. and tailormade training modules for enterprises, ministries and municipalities etc. organisations, which use futures studies. The syllabus is based on regular modules and on specialised modules, which are implemented on a project by project basis. FFA is responsible for the implementation of the regular modules, the funding of which comes from the Ministry of Education. Two such modules are being offered in the 2003/04 academic year, each being worth 7.5 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) credits. The first, on how to explore the future, covers (1) the philosophical and value issues associated with futures studies and (2) an introduction to the various methods used in futures studies. The second module, on futures research methods, covers scenario methods, Delphi, soft systems methodology and quantitative forecasting methods, with a focus on multidisciplinary research problems. The specialised modules are organised, based on demand, in collaboration with relevant partners (FFA member universities, ministries, enterprises etc.), and offer the possibility to deepen and widen the knowledge and methodological foundations of futures studies. Given the distributed nature of the FFA, novel ways have been found to deliver these courses, including the use of virtual learning environments, telematics, virtual guidance, etc. Students meet weekly for three hours in their local study group to participate in lectures via audio and video sessions and to participate in group work and discussions. Students also read study material and do independent self study assignments via . 32

37 Since 2002, the course has been offered across Europe, with students gathering around via learning environment WebCT (Web Course Tools) to share their ideas and experiences. We will say more on the structure and organisation of the FFA in Chapter 7, when we come to consider future options for a sustainable EFA. 3.4 Conclusions Whilst there is some impressive provision of regular, open-access Foresight training across Europe, it is definitely patchy in its geographical coverage. Indeed, in most Member States, there seems to be no or little coverage. If a significant increase in demand was to materialise over the short-medium term, existing provision would be hard-stretched to meet it. That said, it is not difficult to imagine existing and emergent centres creating new courses to meet new demands. Moreover, much demand can and will be soaked up by private consultants, both big and small, offering coaching and process support to companies and public sector organisations. The review has not covered this sort of provision, but it is believed to be already significant. In the executive market, the PREST and UNIDO courses are very internationalised, whilst the Futuribles and Z-punkt courses are more geared to home markets, on account of language (French and German, respectively). Courses focus on learning about methods (particularly the use of scenarios) and on how to organise and manage Foresight exercises. The university courses on offer are also quite internationalised, with the Finland Futures Academy a good exemplar of cross-border course delivery at this level. This is an initiative that could be expanded to cover all countries in Europe. It could also be further developed to accommodate wider definitions and understanding of the meaning of Foresight, which is a contested space at the present time. We will say more on this in Chapter 7 when we come to consider future options for the EFA. There is little sign of an organised series of awareness-raising events emanating from these or other centres in Europe, yet this was a key need identified in the demand review. This is hardly surprising: such events are risky to organise without strong institutional partnership from the target community. This is normally forthcoming only within the contexts of Foresight exercises. However, the centres identified have used other means of awareness-raising. For example, Z_punkt, Futuribles, and FFA all produce regular newsletters and information sheets that are widely distributed. Several new networks have also begun to spring up in the last few years, such as Foresight- Prospective in France and europrospective across Europe more widely, with more or less ambitious goals of promoting Foresight in policy making. So, to conclude, the picture is a dynamic one, with new initiatives and networks emerging all the time. We will discuss in Chapter 7 the options open for the EFA in this fast-evolving field. 33

38 4. Awareness Workshops In light of the feedback from the demand review, it was apparent that many groups and organisations that should be using Foresight (in the opinion of our respondents) were unaware of its existence or benefits. Moreover, it was clear that little, if any, of the existing training provision is meeting this awareness-gap challenge. The project team therefore decided to organise two awareness workshops focused upon two distinct groups regional development professionals in the IRC/IRE Network and JRC programme managers. The objective for both workshops was to inform attendees of what Foresight is and how it could help them in their planning and decision-making. Two sorts of presentations were therefore used: (1) general introductions to Foresight and (2) illustrative examples of Foresight in action. A mix of speakers, both from within and outside the project team, was engaged, bringing with them a wide diversity of views and experiences. Each workshop lasted for 1.5 days, with speakers typically on hand for the duration in order to answer questions. Both workshops are described in more detail below. 4.1 IRC/IRE Network Foresight Awareness Workshop The first awareness workshop was held at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (GZS) in Ljubljana in March The event was organised in collaboration with the IRC/IRE Network secretariat, which promoted the workshop amongst Network members and organised the local logistics. This awareness workshop had not been planned by the EFA project team at the outset but came about as a result of a direct approach from the IRC/IRE Network to the EFA. The IRC/IRE Network had already organised a workshop on regional foresight during 2002, where a number of regions had expressed an interest in the area. The next step for the Network secretariat was to run an awareness workshop. Technology Centre Prague, which is a member of the IRC/IRE Network and part of the EFA project team, were instrumental in orchestrating a link-up of mutual benefit to both the IRC/IRE Network and the EFA. They first made the suggestion to the IRC/IRE Network secretariat to use the EFA s knowledge resources and organised a joint meeting. Accordingly, the EFA agreed to organise the content of the awareness workshop, with the IRC/IRE Network meeting the expenses of speakers. The workshop was specifically addressed to those institutions that were considering the implementation of Foresight exercises in their regions but who felt that they had insufficient knowledge and experience to do so. The workshop would therefore: 1. Provide participants with practical methods on how to implement Foresight activities; 2. Present examples of regions that have successfully implemented Foresight activities; and 3. Provide information on the support that regions could obtain from the European Commission to implement regional Foresight exercises. 34

39 Box 1 shows the list of organisations that registered for the event, whilst the workshop programme is appended in the Annexe. Briefly, the workshop consisted of a series of presentations, with each presentation followed by group discussion. Presentations covered what is Foresight, its relevance for regions, and how regional exercises might be planned and carried out. These presentations all made extensive use of the recently published Practical Guide to Regional Foresight, copies of which were distributed to workshop delegates. There were also introductory presentations on Foresight methodology and on EC-funding opportunities for regional Foresight. Finally, three case study presentations from the UK, Malta, and Finland were interspersed across the programme agenda, so as to illustrate the conduct and usefulness of Foresight in regions. These latter speakers were organised by the IRC/IRE Network secretariat, whilst the remaining presentations were delivered by the EFA project team and an official from DG RTD. Box 1: Organisations registered for the IRC/IRE awareness workshop in Slovenia City of Ljubljana, Slovenia Malta Council for Science and Technology RTC North Ltd, UK Tartu Science Park Foundation, Estonia Lathi Region Educational Consortium, Finland Poznan Science and Technology Park, Poland Wroclaw Center for Technology Transfer, Poland The Researchers Association of Slovenia Fundación Innova - Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain EEDC - Uusimaa Employment and Economic Development, Finland The Research Council of Norway DG Research - European Commission EUREKA Secretariat National contact point of the 6th Framework Programme, Poland Textile technology journal, Slovenia Institute Jozef Stefan, Slovenia Ministry of Economy of Slovenia ASTER Scienza Tecnologia Impresa, Italy Comissão de Coordenação da Região do Alentejo, Portugal Technology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Applied Research and Communications Fund, Bulgaria Foundation Romanian Centre for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises - CRIMM TEP - Hungarian Technology Foresight Programme Institute for Economic Research, Slovenia BIC Group, Slovakia By all accounts, the workshop was a success. Some participants immediately registered for the EFA pilot course on regional foresight (see Chapter 5). Others indicated that they would be recommending the use of Foresight to their organisations on their return home. The IRC/IRE Network secretariat circulated an evaluation form amongst participants, with just under half returning completed questionnaires. Overall, the workshop was given the highest rating by two-thirds of participants, with the remaining awarding the second highest rating. The highest rating of all was given to presentations delivered by the EFA project team, with 90% of responses awarding the highest rating. 35

40 The only point on which the workshop was rated just good or average was the time allocated to group discussion. Clearly, this is something to which future workshops will need to pay attention. As for the organisation of the workshop, two points are worth emphasising here: Organisation of the workshop by the IRC/IRE Network, with the EFA simply providing the content, worked extremely well. The IRC/IRE Network secretariat knew what their members wanted and were able to relate this to the EFA. Moreover, they were in a good position to promote the workshop amongst their members. The host organisation in Slovenia was in a good position to organise all logistical challenges (e.g. hotels, venue, preparation of materials, etc.) on the ground. This would have been difficult for the IRC/IRE Network or the EFA to organise remotely. The subsequent smooth running of the workshop was reflected in the high rating given to the venue and host organisation by workshop participants in their evaluation forms. To conclude, this was a useful event for all concerned that has some valuable lessons for a sustainable EFA. We will say more on this in Section JRC Programme Managers Awareness Workshop During the demand review exercise, JRC-IPTS staff interviewed colleagues in Brussels and at various JRC facilities. These interviews suggested a significant demand existed for Foresight training amongst research managers in the JRC (see Chapter 2). Accordingly, it was decided to begin with the organisation of an awareness workshop for JRC staff, organised along similar lines to the successful IRC/IRE Network event. The workshop was held at Ispra in Italy during May The project team considered opening up the event to research managers from research institutes in the Member States, but this was not followed up because (a) it was judged to require a significant amount of marketing and (b) there already seemed to be a lot of interest from the JRC. As we will see, this was probably a mistake. As in the IRC/IRE workshop, the objective of the JRC event was to raise awareness of the usefulness of Foresight. Accordingly, the workshop programme (see Annexe) included introductions on why Foresight is used in S&T planning and its limitations, a basic introduction on methods, and a presentation on tips and pointers for using the results of Foresight exercises. These presentations were delivered by the EFA project team. However, the mainstay of the workshop was four case study presentations that highlighted the uses of Foresight in informing a range of S&T planning issues, including S&T priority-setting, institutional reform, and science and society relations. These speakers were from outside the EFA project team and were nominated by JRC- IPTS and the project Operating Agent. Finally, the programme was rounded off with a group discussion on how JRC research managers might themselves use Foresight. Unfortunately, this workshop was not as successful as the IRC/IRE event. The main problem was poor attendance only ten people participated, and this number was often lower as people came and went from their labs and offices on site. The small number of participants was extremely disappointing and was made worse by the large size of the 36

41 room. This meant that any sort of constructive group dynamic was absent. Moreover, it was clear that some participants did not want to be part of the workshop but were attending more out of duty than interest. Against this backdrop, some extremely good presentations were delivered by guest speakers covering real examples of S&T Foresight. But from the workshop evaluation that we carried out (the evaluation form is appended to the Annexe), some people were critical of the emphasis upon case studies. Instead, they would have preferred greater elaboration and debate on the conceptual and scientific underpinnings of Foresight. This ran contrary to our expectations and previous training experiences, but with hindsight should not be surprising. After all, we were dealing with scientists, who by nature tend to be questioning and even suspicious of craft-activities like Foresight. Naturally, they wanted to discuss the scientific basis of Foresight and its methods. By contrast, public policy makers and business people are more interested in demonstrations that Foresight works and prefer to be told about success (and failure) stories. These differences demonstrate that more thought needs to be given to the target audience when designing awareness and training programmes and that formulaic onesize-fits-all approaches are likely to encounter problems. A further criticism highlighted by a few participants concerned the format of the workshop, which was lecture based with opportunities for questions and answers after each presentation. The format was criticised as being staid and dull, an unsurprising perception if interest in the subject area is largely absent. But it would be unfair and irresponsible of us to simply dismiss these criticisms as views from the uninterested. Indeed, amongst the workshop teachers, there was a feeling that we needed to be more imaginative in getting our message across. More dynamic and varied teaching modes are no doubt required, especially participative learning modes with their greater scope for learning by doing and learning through interaction. The project team always understood the need for such modes of teaching in Foresight courses see Chapter 5 for evidence of this but had failed to appreciate their importance for the awareness workshops. Moreover, inspirational speakers capable of connecting Foresight to the big questions of the day, as well as to the more parochial concerns of a workshop audience, are probably needed to make a lasting impression. In other words, awareness workshops should be as much about marketing Foresight as they are about informing of its principles and methods. There were also other problems. It seems that the basic knowledge of Foresight amongst participants varied, with the result that some people found the workshop too basic whilst others found it too advanced. This is an all too familiar problem that we will say more about in Chapter 5. Course materials were distributed to participants at the time of the workshop, but some suggested that they should have been made available beforehand. The course handouts were also of unsatisfactory quality (six slides to the page), making the slides difficult to read on paper. This was a result of insufficient communications between the project team and administrative support staff at Ispra, on which we will say more in Chapter 5. On the positive side, some participants indicated an interest in short, more focused courses on particular methods, e.g. scenario planning, technology road mapping, etc. But even this was counterbalanced by a somewhat insular debate on the role of JRC- IPTS within the wider JRC and questioning of the need for Ispra people to be involved 37

42 in organising their own Foresight studies. Nevertheless, this second workshop was a useful learning experience for the project team, highlighting a number of issues that will need further thought and reflection. 4.3 Recommendations With just these two workshop experiences, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions for future EFA activities in this area. However, both workshops highlight several issues for further consideration: Currently, awareness raising activities are largely confined to the dissemination of Foresight guides, 3 the organisation of conferences by the European Commission, 4 and the dissemination of electronic newsletters. 5 Some awareness-raising workshops have been organised at national level, e.g. by the International Observatory for Regional Foresight (OIPR) in France, by the newly established Irish Futures Academy, and by Z_punkt in Germany. Any other workshop activities tend to be organised within the remit of a national or regional Foresight exercise. This picture suggests that immersive awarenessraising, such as that associated with workshops, is rather patchy across Europe. A niche may therefore exist for the EFA (possibly in collaboration with other groups) to organise events like the workshops described in this chapter. The mix of speakers, both from within and outside the project team, was a definite positive. A future EFA should be able to draw upon a pool of speakers from across Europe and should not rely upon just a chosen few. The focus upon the principles of Foresight together with case study illustrations is broadly correct, but the balance between both should be reviewed in accordance with the likely interest of the target audience. More time should be given to discussion and debate participants should not be overly bombarded with new information without an opportunity to reflect upon its use in their own setting. In this respect, further consideration needs to be given to designing more imaginative workshop approaches, possibly using problem-based learning, gaming, and other participative techniques commonly found in management training. Related to the previous point, it seems that awareness-raising is more about marketing than it is about academic-style presentations. Future workshops should be delivered with this point in mind. The apparent interest from the JRC in Foresight training, as indicated by the demand review, quickly evaporated once people were invited to a workshop. The JRC s demand may have been illusionary, possibly on account of the EFA project team s optimism, but probably because what people say and then what they do are often two different things. In future, any demand review should be more sophisticated and should be coupled with a commitment from the target community to take-up the training provision offered. The IRC/IRE Network workshop is a good example of how such commitment can result in a successful 3 For example, see the EC s Practical Guide to Regional Foresight, available at XXXX 4 For example, SEVILLE, BRUSSELS, and IOANNINA conferences (REFs) 5 Give SHAPING TOMORROW, FRENCH NETWORK & Z-PUNKT EXAMPLES WITH REFS. 38

43 outcome. The EFA should therefore consider limiting its awareness-raising (and possibly its training) activities to those situations where an intermediary body, such as the IRC/IRE Network secretariat, already knows what it wants and can muster the interest of its community. In this way, the risks associated with organising and delivering workshops can be shared between the EFA and the intermediary body. Consideration should be given to organising courses that mix levels of governance. For example, it would have been interesting and enriching for JRC research managers to learn about foresight together with their national level counterparts. Such joint events could also make a small contribution to the realisation of the European Research Area (ERA). It is essential that those responsible for workshop logistics are based on the ground, so that they can deal with the mundane tasks associated with running successful events, as well as any mishaps. This was achieved in Slovenia but was partly absent at Ispra, where the project team had to operate in a foreign environment with limited local support. It is strongly advised not to hold awareness raising or training workshops in the place of people s work, since the temptation is all too great for participants to return to the office to deal with something urgent (as happened at Ispra). To reiterate, these recommendations are informative rather than being definitive. Moreover, they should be read in conjunction with the recommendations from Chapter 5, which reflect upon the conduct of the EFA training course on regional foresight. 39

44 5. Regional Foresight Training Course The main activity of, and indeed, the original rationale for establishing the EFA was to pilot a pan-european Foresight training course. With this in mind, a three-day course was organised at Ispra in Italy during May 2003, to run immediately after the JRC awareness-raising workshop. The course was focused on regional foresight, which was considered by the project team to be an area of emerging importance with little existing training provision. Moreover, the project team hoped that the earlier IRC/IRE Network awareness-raising workshop would generate some interest in the course. This was in fact the case, with a few participants attending both the workshop and the course. The objective of the course was to provide an intensive, practically-oriented introduction to regional Foresight methods that would be useful for those thinking about organising and managing Foresight activities in their own regions. Accordingly, the course was targeted at the beginner-intermediary level. Preparation for and delivery of the course are described in more detail below, followed by a list of recommendations for future courses. 5.1 Preparation for the course Several tasks had to be carried out to make the course a reality. Firstly, the course content had to be scoped by the project team. Using the results of the demand review, together with the project team s own knowledge of the regional Foresight scene, it was decided to conduct a methodology course, with plenty of practical work included. From this starting point, a preliminary programme was drafted and potential speakers identified. The EFA project team delivered the majority of sessions, with just a few outside speakers brought in on particular topics. Our next task was on how to market the course. In this respect, the IRC/IRE Network agreed to disseminate the course flyer (see Annexe). The flyer was also distributed via by JRC-IPTS to participants of the Spanish Presidency Foresight Conference held in Seville during May The project team was also tasked with promoting the course within their own countries and across any networks of which they were members. Finally, the flyer and preliminary programme were hosted on the EFA web site as well as the web sites of some members of the project team. The project team decided that the course should essentially be free, with just a nominal 95 euros fee charged to cover lunches, dinner and airport transfers. There was some debate over the wisdom of offering a free Foresight course, especially as an emerging market already exists for Foresight executive education (see Chapter 3). The fear was that such a course could distort this emerging market as well as set a dangerous precedent in raising expectations of future free courses. However, the experimental and pilot status of the course meant that it would be difficult to charge a fee. Moreover, no mechanism exists for the ESTO network to generate its own income from such activities. It was therefore more convenient not to charge for the course but instead to ask for a nominal fee to cover expenses. 40

45 The interest in the course was overwhelming, with around sixty applications received for just thirty places. About half the applications came from Candidate Countries, no doubt on account of (a) the course costing only 95 euros and (b) the availability of fifteen travel and subsistence grants from the JRC-IPTS. Other applications came mostly from southern Europe, especially Italy (no doubt because the course was being held at Ispra). Disappointingly, no applications were received from Germany or France, just one application came from the UK, and Northwest Europe in general was underrepresented. We suspect that more vigorous marketing of the course in these countries would have generated greater interest, but as it was, there was already too much interest from other countries to warrant any proactive marketing strategy. Box 2: Organisations registered for the regional Foresight training workshop Institute of Geography, University of Milano, Italy CARTIF Technology Centre, Spain Ministry of Economy and Transport, Hungary Provincia di Milano, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Universita di Udine, Italy Atlantis Consulting, Greece Poznan Science and Technology Park, Poland National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics, Romania Malta Council for Science and Technology Institute for Forecasting, Slovak Academy of Sciences Ministry of Scientific Research and Information Technology, Poland The Wroclaw Centre for Technology Transfer, Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland Foresight Unit of the Public Company Desarrollo Agrario y Pesquero, Spain General Foundation of the Autonomous University of Madrid AgroBioInstitute, Sofia, Bulgaria LOGOTECH, Greece Innova Foundation - Ciudad Politecnica de la Innovacion, Valencia, Spain Border, Midland and Western Regional Assembly, Ireland Consorzio per I'AREA di Ricerca di Trieste, Italy VINNOVA, Sweden META Group, Italy EC BREC/IBMER, Warsaw, Poland Technology Development Foundation of Turkey Advantage West Midlands, UK Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, Hungary Institute of Baltic Studies, Estonia University of Latvia Institute of Lithuanian Scientific Society Fondazione Roselli, Italy Flemish Science Policy Council, Belgium TUBITAK, Turkey Selection of participants was not an easy task. Indeed, we considered running two courses in parallel, with speakers moving from one course to the other with their presentations. But this was considered to be too ambitious, especially for a pilot course, and the idea was quickly abandoned. Instead, we decided to increase the number to 35 41

46 so as to disappoint as few people as possible. Selection was based upon the following criteria: (a) Country of origin, at least in the case of Candidate Countries, where, for largely political reasons, we sought to ensure that each Candidate Country that submitted applications should have at least one accepted; (b) Institutional origin, where we wanted only those people who were involved in regional development; and (c) Previous knowledge and experience of Foresight, where we wanted those people who had not already undergone Foresight training. These criteria worked reasonably well the Operating Agent and JRC-IPTS independently drew up application shortlists that were almost identical, demonstrating the robustness of our approach. One or two individuals from Candidate Countries were invited to attend that might not otherwise have been. This was on account of them being the only application from that particular country. Otherwise, most participants satisfied the criteria set out in (b) and (c). As the course was being held in Ispra, it was necessary for the project team to establish good links with local administrative staff. As part of the JRC, JRC-IPTS took the lead in coordinating these links, jointly organising venue, hotels, lunches, dinners, and transportation with their Ispra counterparts. This coordination was undoubtedly aided by the fact that the Ispra administrator was a previous employee of JRC-IPTS. Moreover, one member of the JRC-IPTS project team had previously worked in Ispra and was from the region, again smoothing the path to sound coordination. Finally, once the programme was finalised and speakers had agreed to participate, presentations and practical sessions had to be formulated and coordinated. Each speaker was given some instructions on the time they had available, the level at which their presentations had to be pitched, and some ideas on the possible content of their talks. Responsibility for all practical sessions was shared between two course teachers, the idea being that two heads are better than one. Moreover, it was rightly anticipated that course participants would need to be split into groups for practical work two coordinators for each practical session would therefore be a useful asset. One idea for the practical sessions was that they should be linked, with an initial brainstorming session on Day 1 providing the inputs for the scenario exercise on Day 2. This idea was not adopted, however, since it was feared that a poor session on Day 1 could jeopardise the success of the scenario exercise on Day 2. Instead, the practical sessions were conducted as stand-alone exercises. Presentations were supposed to be submitted to the Operating Agent 10 days prior to the course. This was to check their overall suitability and to avoid any undue overlap with other presentations. Unfortunately, just two-thirds of the presentations were submitted prior to the start of the course, and some of these came only a few days before. Fortunately, most presentations were suitably pitched with just a couple of exceptions where too much detail was given or things were insufficiently explained. This successful outcome reflected the extensive presentation experience of most of the speakers. Nevertheless, the Operating Agent should have paid more attention to timely delivery of presentations and should have been more demanding of his colleagues. The 42

47 subsequent delays meant that training packs could not be fully prepared before the course started, with participants only receiving all training materials half-way through the first day. Preparation for the practical sessions was similarly dogged by a last minute culture that surrounded some aspects of the course s organisation. As already indicated, two course teachers were responsible for each practical session, but little, if any, contact, let alone coordination, seemed to take place between some of these individuals. Again, the Operating Agent could have assumed a more demanding role here and should have harangued those who were responsible. 5.2 Delivering the course As already stated, the course lasted for three days, with a mixture of presentations and practical sessions focused mostly upon Foresight methods. The main exceptions were the first half-day, which focused upon introductory presentations on rationales for and examples of regional Foresight, and the last day of the course, where Foresight implementation and multi-level Foresight were discussed. The methods covered by presentations included environmental scanning, trend analysis, brainstorming and other creative methods, Delphi, SMIC, expert panels, and scenarios. Presentations were delivered in this order since this represents a possible (and perhaps even typical) sequence in real life Foresight exercises. All presentations were filmed and later made available to course participants on DVD. The account that follows is based upon participants feedback through evaluation forms and a group discussion at the course end. In addition, teachers from the project team contributed candid views on what worked and what did not. They also made suggestions on how things could be improved next time around. Overall, the course was judged to be a major success. Evaluation ratings by participants ranged between good to excellent on all aspects of the course. Participants were clearly motivated to learn and brought much energy and enthusiasm with them to the course. The beautiful surroundings and well-organised extra-curricular activities, neither of which should be underestimated, also contributed to a good and open atmosphere. Inevitably, some presentations were better than others. Some were too long, whilst others were too ambitious in the time available. There were probably too many presentations given the relatively short duration of the course, leaving insufficient time for practical work. On a positive note, the presentations fitted together reasonably well despite minimal coordination beforehand. Again, this is testimony to the professionalism of the speakers, as well as to coherence in the overall design of the course, which gave a sense of what was expected from speakers. Speakers are also well-known to one another, at least in most cases, and this helped to foster a strong team spirit. There were three main phases of practical work, covering causal-layered analysis (Day 1), scenario development (Day 2), and the so-called methods jigsaw (Day 3). The practical work was well regarded by course participants, but was something of a nightmare at times for the course teachers. Three main problems can be identified: 43

48 1. Insufficient preparation beforehand, which affected all of the practical sessions to a greater or lesser degree. The problem was most acute in the first practical session on causal layered analysis since it was an approach that most teachers were unfamiliar with. A note explaining the approach and setting out the steps for the practical group work was circulated amongst teachers the evening before. But more briefing was required. Consequently, most course teachers, acting as group facilitators, followed procedures that they knew best most notably traditional brainstorming formats with little regard for the practical session instructions. Understandably, this led to some confusion amongst course participants. 2. Insufficient time for participants to fully appreciate the method they were working with. The relative lack of time is a common problem in all such practical exercises, especially when participants find an exercise stimulating. The problem was most acute for the methods jigsaw exercise, where far too little time was provided for a subject of great importance and interest to participants. With hindsight, the course could have been more focused on a smaller selection of methods, which would have meant less presentations and more time for practical work. It could also have been longer in duration, perhaps as long as five days, which would have made it comparable to the recent UNIDO course on methods where similar presentations and practical sessions were organised. 3. The large size of the group meant that four breakout groups had to be formed for each practical session. This became a challenge when four experienced facilitators were required to lead the groups. With 4-5 teachers on hand during the whole of the course, the project team was able to manage, but it did mean some teachers having to lead some sessions on methods that they were not altogether familiar with. Although we tried to invite only those people who had not undergone Foresight training previously, some people slipped through the net. Moreover, even some of those who had not undergone training had, nevertheless, extensive knowledge and sometimes experience of Foresight. Taken together with the absolute beginners, this meant that we had a rather mixed-ability group of participants with differing training needs and a variety of expectations for the course. This might be avoided in future if a suite of courses is offered. This would allow people to choose the course most suited to their training needs. It would also discourage them from taking up any training being offered for fear that nothing else will be offered in the future. It was also interesting to note one particular common expectation amongst some participants, irrespective of their Foresight background: a belief that they would be experts in using Foresight methods in light of their course training. By the end of the course, these people openly acknowledged that this was an unrealistic expectation as one participant put it, In any other field, it would be unrealistic to expect to be an expert after just three days training. Why should Foresight be any different? A wideranging course like the one organised could only introduce the main methods and was of insufficient duration to do more than this. Books, practical hands-on experience, coaching, and training courses dedicated to a single method (e.g. scenarios) could be suitable follow-up activity that would develop skills further. 44

49 All in all, there was a lot to squeeze in, perhaps too much. This raises the question that perhaps we tried to do too much in too little time. Whilst the experience was enjoyable, it was also exhausting, especially for JRC-IPTS staff and the Operating Agent, coming on the heels of the earlier JRC awareness-raising workshop. As for course logistics, these were okay considering nobody was home-based. But administrative support was sometimes difficult to secure and unfamiliarity with local services, such as web access and photocopying, was a problem on occasion. Negotiating the security ring-fence around Ispra also led to delays, especially on the first day with so many passports to register at the main gates. The chief logistical problem, however, concerned the hotel accommodation of participants, who were distributed across three hotels in two different villages several kilometres apart. This partially hampered attempts at building a team spirit amongst participants, although organised evening events helped to alleviate this problem. 5.3 Recommendations Whilst the course was widely considered to be successful, a number of issues emerged that call for further attention and action: There are several mundane tasks associated with the organisation of training courses, such as application processing, payment of teachers fees, generation and distribution of marketing material, etc. These require the attention of professional administrators rather than researchers or teachers, who are better used for other tasks, e.g. developing course content, etc. A permanent and sustainable EFA should therefore employ the skills of an administrator to smoothly manage such processes and deliverables. Courses should be hosted by an institution active in the EFA rather than at a neutral venue where logistics may be more challenging to handle. Greater use needs to be made of existing channels when disseminating information on courses. The level of interest in northern Europe was extremely low, at least partly on account of poor information distribution. An administrator will help with this task, but members of the EFA also have responsibilities that need to be taken seriously. Whilst a team spirit amongst teachers emerged during the course, this needed to be built into the preparatory phase as well. This was perhaps too much to expect from a pilot, but in the future, better leadership and coordination, together with timely preparation of materials, will be essential. Regarding course materials, these should be made available to course participants at least one-week prior to the course being held. Shorter, snappier presentations should be used wherever possible. This demands the use of (1) versatile people with wide experience that can be deployed to cover many subjects succinctly in any one course; and (2) imaginative use of ICTs, where some speakers can be beamed in remotely using videoconference facilities. In general, material should be delivered in much more imaginative ways, using problem-based learning, gaming, humour, etc. Moreover, practical sessions 45

50 need to be well prepared beforehand, with facilitators made comfortable with the task at hand. Practical sessions should be stimulating and fun for participants to do. Wherever possible, the EFA should continue to film its courses. This provides a useful resource that can be drawn upon at a later date (by participants and teachers alike) and is also a potentially useful tool for teachers to improve their teaching style. We must also acknowledge the limitations of any training courses. What some course participants really needed were mentors who could coach them through their Foresight processes, not more training. The EFA could of course offer other services to fulfil this role see Chapter 7 for discussion of these options. Courses need to be better targeted. There was a mix of people attending the course with differing experiences and expectations. Whilst to some extent this is virtually inevitable, offering a suite of courses in the future will provide scope for improved targeting. Further courses should be developed focusing upon methods, e.g. scenario workshops (hands-on); implementing Foresight; use of participatory methods in Foresight; use of computer tools (web, electronic meeting rooms, decision support, etc.); and Masterclass sessions for existing practitioners. Consideration should also be given to courses focused upon content, where participants will be invited to use the outputs from Foresight and Futures Studies. The issue of course fees needs to be studied more closely to avoid market distortion. Finally, the EFA should continue to take seriously the importance of creating a positive ambience around training courses. Dinners and an evening boat trip successfully contributed to the development of a positive group dynamic and to the overall enjoyment of the Ispra course. 46

51 6. The Foresight Reader and EFA web site In this chapter, we present the Foresight Reader developed by the project team. We also describe the development of the EFA web site and summarise other promotional activities in support of the EFA. 6.1 The Foresight Reader In addition to piloting awareness-raising workshops and a Foresight methods course, the project team was committed to producing a teaching aid in the form of a Reader. This was intended to provide an intermediate level introduction to Foresight, drawing upon the extensive inside knowledge of the project team. A Foresight Reader First edition General Editors Rémi Barré Kerstin Cuhls Jari Kaivo-oja Michael Keenan Karel Klusacek Graham May Ian Miles Rafael Popper Fabiana Scapolo Mario Zappacosta A few guides for Foresight have recently been developed 6 and it was important for the Reader not to duplicate these. Accordingly, it was decided that the Reader should be a collection of excerpts and summaries of existing issues and experiences in Foresight. 6 REFS 47

52 This montage approach also had the advantage of taking less time to put together, since writing a professional textbook from scratch would have taken up far more time than the project budget could allow. The Reader has been structured along the lines shown in Box 3. Box 3: Outline chapters of the EFA Foresight Reader 1. Why is Foresight Relevant? 2. Historical and Epistemological Foundations of Foresight 3. Foresight Activities Today 4. Methods Used in Foresight 5. Practical Lessons for Managing and Organising Foresight Processes 6. Use and Outcomes of Foresight 7. Foresight in Action: Some Illustrative Examples Plans are afoot to publish the Reader in hard-copy format, but for the moment, it is only available electronically on the EFA web site EFA online Hosted by the JRC-IPTS, the project web site was developed primarily as a tool for making available information on forthcoming events (descriptions, registration forms, etc.). The front page is shown below. 48

53 As the project progressed, more attention was paid to using the web site as a tool for disseminating presentations delivered at EFA events. Also taking seriously its potential role as a place of exchange between existing Foresight trainers, the site developed links to other Foresight training provision (see below). Links have also been made to existing Foresight exercises and a selection of Foresight research projects. At the time of writing, much of the site is still under construction. Moreover, no attempt has been made to encourage project partners or others to mirror the site on their own web pages. Thus, the site has so far been used almost exclusively by project partners and event participants. Clearly, much greater potential exists for developing the web site but this must now wait for decisions to be made on the future of the EFA. 6.3 Other promotional activities The chief promotional activity undertaken by the project team was the demand review in October This generated a lot of interest in the EFA, both within Europe and beyond. The pilot status of the project and its rather limited remit has, however, meant it has been difficult to usefully build upon this interest. If and when a decision is taken to go-ahead with a permanent EFA, this interest could probably be reignited with little effort. The other main activity undertaken within the boundaries of the project concerned a promotional / consultation workshop at the Greek Presidency Foresight Conference at Ioannina in May Here, the Operating Agent, supported by several project team members, presented the EFA s current activities and asked for ideas on how the concept could be brought forwards. Some of the views expressed by those attending the 49

54 workshop have been incorporated into Chapter 7 of this report, where we present future options for the development of a permanent and sustainable EFA. The Operating Agent also presented the EFA at a poster session at the UNIDO Foresight Summit in Budapest in March More recently, he presented the EFA at a Foresight conference in Colombia, where there is much interest in reproducing the EFA idea for Latin America. 6.4 Recommendations A future EFA should consider taking the following actions: The concept behind the Reader should be developed further, with additional pedagogical materials generated in support of teaching activities. The authors of the first edition of the Reader should consider collaboration on developing a Foresight textbook. The EFA web site should be extensively revamped, with more links and more support to prospective practitioners and users of Foresight. Depending on the future shape and activities of the EFA, the web site could also be an essential point for delivery of online distance learning courses. It is important for the EFA and its web site to complement DG RTD s planned Foresight Mapping project and not to duplicate these efforts. A clear division of labour should be agreed upon and mutually beneficial arrangements put in place. Wherever possible, the EFA should take advantage of existing events and infrastructures in delivering its message and programmes. 50

55 7. European Foresight Academy: Future Options In this final chapter, the possibilities for establishing a sustainable European Foresight Academy on a permanent basis are considered. To begin, we reflect upon the conduct of the pilot study as a whole, synthesising and summarising the lessons that have been learnt. Secondly, the range of training needs and the possible activities to meet those needs are set out. In other words, we consider the content of the EFA s programme if it were to become a sustainable Academy. Some of this ground has been covered already in Chapter 2, but here, we organise it into a number of themes, including activities directed at awareness-raising and embedment, production of training materials, coaching services, and methodology development, amongst others. The third part of the chapter is given over to discussion of how the EFA could operate how it could be organised, how it could be managed, and how it could be funded. In this regard, we present five scenarios that summarise different, yet plausible, structures for the EFA. At no point do we express a preference for one model over another. Instead, we leave it to the Foresight community and prospective sponsors of the EFA to make their own choices. In the final section, we provide some summary conclusions. 7.1 What have we learnt from this pilot study? The main lessons to emerge from the project have come from two sources: (1) the demand and supply reviews; and (2) the three pilot events. Taking the reviews first, the demand study showed an overwhelming interest in training and other support provision, as well as a substantial level of backing for the permanent establishment of the EFA. Raising awareness of Foresight and providing guidance on using its results were the most popular demands. Clearly, these need not be achieved through training workshops alone newsletters, web sites, and other publications can help in this regard. Indeed, an interesting result was the call for initiatives other than training courses. Ideas included methodological development, forums for the exchange of experiences and good practice, and the establishment of the EFA as a nucleus of reference (case studies, standards, practitioners database, etc.). Concerns were raised that the EFA should not homogenise Foresight practice across Europe diversity was a positive thing and therefore welcome. The issue of subsidiarity was also touched upon, if somewhat indirectly, where a number of people envisaged the EFA as a decentralised federation of training centres across the EU Member States. We will return to this idea below. The supply review showed a rather patchy picture of training provision, though at the same time, a fast-evolving one. Much of the current training provision is relatively new, especially in the executive market, with more centres setting up courses all the 51

56 time. Much training is also relatively invisible and ad hoc, being delivered by private consultants to companies and public organisations. The pilot events were, on the whole, a resounding success. A number of lessons also emerged for future reference, which have already been set out in detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. They included the need for more imaginative means of transfer of knowledge (for example, using ICTs, gaming and simulations, and problem-based learning), better targeting and marketing of courses, the need for a wide variety of course offerings, the importance of a mix of speakers, and the need for strong coordination and leadership of training programmes. The issue of training course fees remains unresolved again, we will discuss this below when we consider future funding options for the EFA. Unfortunately, it was not possible to use the pilot study to test the other demands articulated in the demand review, e.g. the issue of implications of Foresight results in different policy areas. The project had a limited budget that was largely consumed by the training course and awareness-raising events. Whether we should have aimed to test the concept of delivering a training course is an open question, not least since similar courses have been provided by other organisations in Europe, e.g. PREST, UNIDO, etc. for some years now and are clearly viable. In our defence, we would add that the project was originally conceived to test and develop ESTO competencies to meet the Foresight capacity-building challenge facing Europe. A jointly-organised training course was therefore a natural choice for the project to pilot. Clearly, if the pilot could have had a wider remit to test the other suggestions highlighted in the demand review, then we would have learnt even more than we have already. As it is, we have demonstrated that the delivery of Foresight training courses is a viable activity at European level and that European Foresight centres can work together in a constructive and complementary manner under the umbrella of the EFA. With this conclusion in mind, we will now turn our attention to consideration of the future content of the EFA s programme and the organisational structure that it might assume. 7.2 Content what sorts of things could a future EFA do? Given the bounded remit of the pilot study, its results add little to the process of sorting through the suggestions made in Chapter 2. To recall, the possible sorts of training that the EFA could offer are summarised in Box 3. There is, of course, no principled reason why the EFA could not offer the full suite of suggestions in Box 3. The main barrier to such an undertaking would be financial resources and political will, as well as practical and intellectual interest in such a programme. In this regard, it is worth perhaps recalling the potential targets of Foresight capacity-building activities. These include: Senior decision makers (at least Director level) Strategy departments in public and private sector organisations, e.g. ministries, regional development agencies, corporations, etc. Public administrators and bureaucrats (EU, national, regional, local levels) Prospective managers of Foresight 52

57 Foresight practitioners and theoreticians Consultants (as change agents) EU funding communities, so that they understand how Foresight can be used Scientists and other professionals NGOs and other lobbyists Intermediary bodies, e.g. trade associations, charities, etc. Opinion leaders (media, politicians, authors, popular culture, etc.) University students School children and youth We have already rehearsed the potential benefits to be had by many of these groups as a consequence of Foresight training or awareness, and these will not be reiterated here (see Chapter 2). Box 3: Suggestions on type of training course to be offered by the EFA 1. Awareness-raising workshops, directed primarily at policy makers, but also directed at scientists and EU project proposal writers, e.g. those intending to submit Integrated Project proposals under FP6 2. Foresight methods toolbox training, covering some of the main methods 3. Training courses focused upon state-of-the-art Foresight methods, including use of ICTs in Foresight 4. Training in the management and organisation of Foresight exercises, similar to the courses offered by PREST and UNIDO (see Chapter 3) 5. Courses on how to use (absorb) Foresight results for successful implementation outcomes 6. In addition, workshops where organisations can discuss the implications of Foresight results for their own policy areas, business sectors, etc. 7. Wider courses, for instance, directed at a particular domain area (e.g. urban regeneration) or issue (e.g. the new governance of science), with Foresight embedded within them 8. Courses for explicitly multiplying Foresight practice through the training of trainers (e.g. staff in business support programmes) and teachers (e.g. high school teachers) 9. University courses, ranging from individual modules embedded in other courses through to full Masters programmes 10. Incorporation into school and college curricula 11. Workshops, rather than training courses (or conferences, where there is rarely any intimacy), where practitioners and theoreticians can meet to share ideas and experiences 53

58 Short Courses on Methods and Exercise Organisation Some of the suggestions shown in Box 3 are easier to meet than others. Methods training and short courses on the management and organisation of Foresight are already well established, as revealed by our supply review (see Chapter 3). The main issue here is their concentration in just a few centres in Europe. In the short-term, the EFA could seek to fill this void through organising its own courses, as happened in the pilot study. However, in the medium-long term, it could look to facilitate a wider distribution of training centres across Europe. This might involve training trainers, building a mutual support network for training centres, and developing training materials for wide use. Awareness Raising A key demand from practitioners and from those keen on organising their own Foresight activities is the need for awareness-raising. This is more complicated than it first seems. To begin with, awareness-raising means different things. It can refer to the activity of informing institutions of the results from Foresight exercises, and giving them guidelines on how the results can be utilised. In such cases, raw data typically needs to be available (it is often little use giving organisations a list of priorities to work with). But the most common understanding of awareness-raising is concerned with informing decision makers of Foresight s role in society and its relevance to their organisations. Without an appreciation of Foresight s benefits, existing and would-be practitioners face an uphill struggle in getting their Foresight plans accepted. As we have already said, workshops are one medium for doing this, but there are also many others. Moreover, a key lesson from our pilot study has been the advantage in organising awareness workshops with intermediaries who can articulate the needs of the organisations they represent and enrol them into the awareness-raising process. Foresight Embedment Linked to the issue of awareness-raising is the desire to better embed Foresight in our societies. Recalling the quote cited in Chapter 2, the challenge of getting organisations to use Foresight is more than a matter of simply teaching a few methods to middle managers. It requires a deeper understanding of how we shape our futures and a stateof-mind that reviews and reassesses the day-to-day assumptions upon which we act. Embedment therefore refers to the adoption of Foresight ideas and practices in institutional routines across the whole of society. Awareness-raising has a role here, but there are also training issues. A number of Member States have recognised this and, for example, have sought to train Foresight trainers. These have the potential to be multipliers of Foresight thinking and practice in many different settings. Box 4 shows an example from the UK, which is focused upon SME support services. Another example is provided by the work of project partner Fraunhofer-ISI, which has been involved in training school teachers in the use of Foresight approaches that can then be deployed in the classroom. Further embedment demands are focused upon university courses and school and college curricula. These demands were most strongly articulated by existing practitioners, and especially those from the Futures Studies tradition. Futures Studies has a long history of trying to get recognition as a serious academic field, especially in universities. The World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) the professional 54

59 association for futurists (see Box 10 below) has been at the forefront of such efforts (for example, it is currently trying to establish a global Masters programme in Futures Studies). Overall, there has been some success, but most futurists would acknowledge that much still remains to be done. According to futurists, the main problem is the conservativeness of universities, particularly in continental Europe, and any successes are normally attributable to the brilliance and tenacity of the individuals involved. Box 4: Your Future in Business Foresight Training Toolkit Your Future in Business is a Foresight training toolkit offered to business facilitators and client executives by five centres across the United Kingdom. According to one training provider, the Centre for Competitiveness in Northern Ireland, The Foresight Toolkit exists to help private, public and voluntary organisations become more forward-looking, to create exciting visions for the future and then set about fulfilling them. ( ) The Toolkit is designed to help those involved with the delivery of any aspect of business support and improvement to introduce foresight techniques to their clients. Eight modules are available, covering: (1) an introduction to foresight; (2) vision; (3) setting and achieving stretch goals; (4) SWOT and STEEP analysis; (5) ideas; (6) decisions and strategy; (7) strategic planning; and (8) next steps. The Toolkit and training in its use have been available since As for school and college curricula, again, Futures Studies has been active in promoting itself in this sphere for some time now. The recent interest in Foresight has also seen the launch of new initiatives to introduce future-oriented courses onto curricula. For example, the authors are casually aware of initiatives in the UK, Germany, Sweden and Malta, and no doubt there are others in other countries. The pilot study did not attempt to address directly the issue of embedment, mostly on account of the time and resources available. Clearly, embedment is a long-term goal, with the whole gamut of training, newsletters, discussion forums, and Foresight exercises themselves contributing to its realisation. We have seen that other organisations, mostly from the Futures Studies tradition, have tried to take up this challenge directly but have found it extremely difficult to make significant progress. We therefore recommend that a review of these efforts be conducted before the EFA embarks upon any explicit embedment promotion activities. Methodology Development Another area identified by the demand review was the need for methodology development in Foresight. Many people thought that this should be an important task of the EFA: just like a regular academy, the EFA should be active in developing the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of Foresight, and not just a provider of training. There is much potential for methodology development in Foresight, especially by drawing upon Futures Studies, Technology and Integrated Assessment, and other participative planning approaches. Foresight has always borrowed its methods from other disciplines and could still profitably benefit by doing so. There is also significant potential for ICTs to revolutionise Foresight methodology. At the time of writing, a new COST Action on Foresight Methodology has just been approved (see Box 5). This Action has been initiated largely by those who use futures 55

60 methods (especially scenarios and simulation models) in the environmental field, although it will be open to others to join, for example, from the technology Foresight tradition. The COST Action, which is set to start at the end of 2003, meets many of the methodological development points highlighted in our demand review. It would therefore seem reasonable for a future EFA to work with this COST Action rather than duplicate its activities. We say more on this in Section 7.3. Box 5: COST Action on Foresight Methodologies Starting in December 2003 and due to last for four years, a COST Action on Foresight methodologies is to be launched. The main objective of the Action is to develop certain aspects of Foresight methodology so as to ensure systematic use and optimum benefit, specifically in the areas of identifying seeds of change, integrating narratives and numbers, and interaction between researchers, decision makers, and the public. The diversity in European Foresight methodology makes for a rich pallet of techniques but it also leads to the reinventing of wheels and putting old wine in new bottles. On the other hand, developments in European Foresight are encouraging. A challenge is to maintain the development of European Foresight in all its facets such as methodology, product, communication, and dissemination. This COST Action addresses two aspects of Foresight: Research and development of Foresight methodology: currently there is an imbalance between the high level of operational use of Foresight and the relatively low level of research and development of its methodology. Addressing a number of specified methodological issues in the Action would serve to enhance the quality of Foresight practice. Communication of and co-operation on Foresight methodology among researchers and practitioners: communication and co-operation of Foresight expertise and experience is improving but most takes place within disciplinary and thematic boundaries. More crossdisciplinary communication would enhance learning and the development of methodological aspects of Foresight. Nucleus of Reference A number of demand review respondents suggested that the EFA should constitute a nucleus of reference for Foresight, for example, by giving guidance on methods and approaches, by providing case studies of good (and bad) practice, by setting quality standards, and by producing training materials that could be widely disseminated and deployed across Europe. To meet these demands, the EFA will need to work closely with the Foresight Monitoring and Mapping Project that will be launched by DG RTD in 2004 (see Box 6). It is envisaged that the Mapping Project itself could be a useful resource for understanding and promoting Foresight practice and results. But further repackaging will be needed to transform Mapping outputs into suitable training materials. 56

61 Box 6: Monitoring and Mapping Foresight in Europe (DG RTD) At the time of writing (October 2003), a call for tenders to monitor and map Foresight activities in Europe is still open. This project will draw on the pilot phase of a mapping of Foresight activities performed by JRC-IPTS and ESTO in It is anticipated that mapping will be based on a survey of national and regional Foresight activities, which will be carried out by a network of country correspondents on a permanent basis. The network will collect and analyse information on such activities in Europe; produce brief overviews on thematic Foresight results and on national/regional Foresight activities; and exploit this information for the preparation of a Foresight Map. Networks and Services for Mutual Learning Finally, the demand review showed much interest in the establishment of discussion forums for mutual learning between Foresight users and practitioners. These could be remotely convened through online discussion groups, or they could be physical meeting events, such as knowledge fairs and other conferences / workshops. They would be places where practitioners could share their knowledge and experiences for mutual gain. There was insufficient time for the EFA to set up anything like this during the pilot study, but if it were to be done in the future, it would need to be framed and delivered carefully with appropriate focus. For example, it is well known that many online discussion groups generate disappointing levels of traffic, whilst conferences often fail to meet expectations. The EFA would therefore need to examine carefully the options for discussion forums before committing itself to any particular format. Something else that was highlighted by the demand review was the need for the EFA to be flexible in its response to the information and training needs of its potential users. Some users would need only to know what Foresight is and what it does; others would need to gain proficiency in using the methods; whilst still others would need advice on particular issues and problems. The first two needs can be reasonably satisfied by semistandardised courses and workshops. The latter need is, however, more difficult to satisfy in this way. This was also apparent during the running of the EFA training course: a few of the participants were relatively advanced in their use of Foresight already and did not need training on the use of methods. Instead, they required advice on specific issues and problems they were facing in their particular regional Foresight exercises. Generally speaking, such advice cannot be provided in standard training courses but is best given either through self-help group processes (e.g. in workshops or online discussion groups), or on a one-to-one basis (e.g. through coaching or an agony aunt service). Coaching refers to a situation where an experienced practitioner is at hand to aid a less experienced individual or organisation in their Foresight activities. Coaching services are often provided by consultants and academics who advise companies and organisations on their Foresight activities, although such coaching can spill over to active process facilitation. An example of coaching provided by the public sector is shown in Box 7. Here, the EC has set up a series of regional Foresight sub-groups that mix experienced and less experienced regions. The aim is to generate Foresight action 7 M. Keenan, D. Abbott, F. Scapolo and M. Zappacosta (2002) EUROFORE: European Foresight Competence Mapping (Pilot) Project, Final Report

62 plans (also known as blueprints ) for the less experienced regions. Each sub-group has 4-5 regions represented, at least one of which will be highly experienced in using Foresight. The idea is that the experienced region will coach the others in their development of blueprints. Clearly, the scope of such coaching activities could be widened, especially if the regional Foresight Blueprints Group is successful. For example, coaching could be focused upon the use of a particular method, the challenge of engaging particular groups, or even the practicalities of delivering successful training courses, to name just a few. The EFA could be active in establishing coaching partnerships or networks, especially concerning matters relevant to Foresight training and capacity-building. Box 7: DG RTD s Regional Foresight Blueprints Action Group Building upon the regional Foresight country guides published in 2002, 8 DG RTD have recently established an action-oriented group that aims to develop Foresight blueprints, i.e. action plans for implementing Foresight in regions. The point of departure for the Blueprint Group is to link regions that have experience of Foresight with those wishing to implement Foresight, thereby building learning partner relationships. This could include advanced motor regions, traditional industry based regions in need of new directions, urban or rural regions, etc. The directly involved regions are intended to serve as role models for a larger number of regions, presenting the blueprints to a larger audience after the group has finished its work. The blueprints will be developed as guides for action, of a regional, trans-regional, or horizontal character. The blueprints will articulate a clear rationale for regional Foresight, and will build on a clearly identified and recognised need, showing the role of regional Foresight in improving policy design and implementation for enhancing competitiveness and social cohesion in knowledge based economies. Beyond the framework of the group, the blueprints should serve as road maps for regions wanting to learn from the group s work and earlier successful activities. A less intensive form of coaching could be provided by ad hoc, one-off advice through what we call an agony aunt 9 service. Foresight practitioners, both new and old, often encounter challenges that may be difficult to solve alone. A word of advice from someone else can sometimes bring new ideas and perspectives to problem-solving. Thus, one service that the future EFA could offer is an online Questions and Answers service, which would constitute a sort of helpdesk. The helpdesk could be a small panel of Foresight experts, numbering perhaps four persons, who would be at hand to answer questions and queries as they are submitted (perhaps with a promise to reply within 3 days). A single panel member might reply on behalf of the panel, or more likely, panel members would be free to give their own views individually. A further variation might see queries submitted to a wider mailing list. A wider range of responses would then be possible, at least in theory. On the downside, mail list members may be irritated by questions and queries and may not provide any useful answers. And it would be unreasonable for anyone to think that they could get free extensive consultancy services through such arrangements. 8 REF 9 Agony aunt is a British colloquialism for a person who offers personal advice in a newspaper or magazine column to readers who write in with their problems. 58

63 To summarise, the EFA could offer a wide variety of products and services, depending upon the funding available and the interest they generate. In the next section, we examine some of the options for configuring the EFA to deliver some of the content outlined here. 7.3 Structure how might a future EFA be configured? For the purposes of this pilot study, six Foresight centres from across six countries have worked together on a project basis, designing and delivering awareness workshops and a training course, and authoring a Foresight Reader. Some project partners were more involved than others in specific tasks, but all strategic decisions were taken together as a project team. The question is whether a future EFA could work in this way? In designing a future EFA, there are some essential features that should be observed: The EFA should be lean and non-bureaucratic, irrespective of the scope of its activities; The EFA should not seek to displace existing training or awareness-raising activities that are offered on a commercial basis; The EFA should be open to new ideas and new people, and not a closed shop that harbours vested interests and/or narrow views on what Foresight is; The EFA should, wherever possible, develop linkages with existing relevant initiatives, so as not to reinvent the wheel (duplication); The EFA should observe the principle of subsidiarity, ensuring that training and capacity-building activities are devolved to Member States, if appropriate; The EFA should be a distributed Academy, its nodes spread across all parts of the EU28; and The EFA should be financially sustainable, meaning it will need to develop multiple sources of funding, both public and private. Bearing these points in mind, as well as considering the scope of possible activities that the EFA could undertake (see Section 7.2), we have decided to paint a variety of plausible pictures of a future EFA. In other words, we have developed scenarios. We have taken four dimensions around which our scenarios are built: 1. Remit will this be wide, to include most or all of the potential activities highlighted in Section 7.2? Or will it be narrow, for example, focusing just on the maintenance of an online discussion space? 2. Active Involvement will the EFA be exclusively operated by a single or small number of organisations, as in the pilot study? Or will it be a more inclusive endeavour, organised more like a network? 3. Mode of Operation will the EFA operate mostly on a personal face-to-face basis? Or will it be almost entirely dependent on the use of the Internet to deliver training and networking? 59

64 4. Funding will the EFA be entirely self-funding, for instance, through course fees? Or will it be supported by public funding, for example, from the EC and/or the Member States? In all, we have developed five scenarios with a three-year time horizon (to 2006). This has been done by asking two key questions: 1. Do we need a European Foresight Academy in Europe? Assuming the answer is No, we have developed The Status Quo Scenario. 2. If the answer to (1) is, however, Yes, should a European Foresight Academy be organising its own training and capacity-building initiatives or should it be adding value to the activities of others? Assuming that the EFA confines itself to adding value, we have developed two possible scenarios: The Gazette Scenario, where the EFA is little more than an online information-sharing space; and The Orchestrator Scenario, where the EFA is more active in promoting co-ordination between existing initiatives. We have also developed two scenarios for an EFA that is itself engaged in organising its own training and capacity-building activities. These are The Player Scenario, where the EFA runs training courses to complement those already in existence; and The Impresario Scenario, where the EFA takes the leading role in organising training and capacity-building initiatives in Europe. Each of these scenarios is elaborated in more detail below. In the best tradition of using scenarios, we do not pretend that any of them are predictions of the future of the EFA or that one is more likely to come about than another. Rather, each is a plausible and internally consistent account of a possible future for the EFA. The scenarios have been created simply to illustrate some of the possible options open to the EFA and to provoke debate on its future. It is down to the reader to decide on what course (s)he believes the EFA should follow. Before describing the scenarios, we should say a few words on a key factor underlying the scenario set. This concerns the growth and development of the Foresight field itself, especially as an area of practice. If interest in Foresight continues to grow at the rate seen in the last 3-4 years, then we might expect many more organisations in a wider variety of settings undertaking Foresight-type exercises. In the medium-long term, there may even be a shift towards more sustainable and democratically accountable policy and investment decision-making, which in turn could see a greater use of Foresight tools. Clearly, any marked increase in interest will create a demand for training courses, awareness-raising measures, discipline-building activities, and other related services. It is also likely to see a mushrooming of service suppliers, many of who will come from the private sector. If, on the other hand, the popularity of Foresight wanes, then demand for these services is likely to be minimal and many potential service providers are unlikely to materialise. Of course, popular interest in Foresight is not a totally exogenous factor here, since successful awareness-raising and discipline-building activities would be expected to contribute to Foresight s popularity. But it would be overly simplistic to assume that a bigger programme of awareness-raising, training, etc. would alone provide bigger returns in terms of the level of interest in Foresight. Clearly, there are other multiple 60

65 factors at play that reflect the wider economic, political, social, and cultural environment. Given these complications, we have decided not to include the growth and development of Foresight as a variable in our scenarios. Instead, we have assumed for all scenarios that Foresight continues to be used at national level, is used more than today at regional levels, and continues to be slowly adopted by sectoral and interest communities, as well as individual organisations, both in the public and private sectors. Against this background, our scenarios suggest different approaches to providing training, awareness-raising services, and discipline-building activities by a prospective EFA. Scenario 1 The Status Quo In this scenario, no EFA or anything like it is set up in Europe. Open access executive Foresight training courses continue to be available at a few centres around Europe, such as PREST and Futuribles, though contact between these centres remains minimal. One or two new centres have appeared by 2006, but in most places in Europe, no such training exists. As for university courses, there has been a slight increase in their prevalence, but this is the result of efforts by a few committed futurists who have been working on embedding Futures Studies into academia for many years. Any other embedding or awareness-raising activities are largely confined to areas where Foresight exercises are currently underway. But these fall far short of the expectations of practitioners and of those who would like to see the institutionalisation of a Foresight culture, not least due to their transitory existence. In the meantime, the EC continues to support the mapping and monitoring of Foresight in Europe (see Box 6). Whilst much of the data collected has been cleverly presented to increase the likelihood of its use by decision makers and practitioners, little effort has been put into transforming it for pedagogical purposes. On the other hand, more guidebooks and textbooks on Foresight have now appeared, with a few available in most of the major European languages. And the COST Action on Foresight methodology has produced some useful lessons for theoreticians and practitioners, although translating these lessons into guidance and good practice has proved difficult. Box 8: Regional Foresight Association (RFA) Founded in 2003 by the Centre of Technology Assessment in Stuttgart, the Regional Foresight Association (RFA) aims to be a platform for knowledge exchange on regional Foresight. More specifically, it seeks to be a place for exchange of experiences and good practices, as well as a place for promoting the development of Foresight methods and approaches. Already, several hundred Foresight experts and institutions have expressed their interest in joining the RFA. A survey of these actors, which sought their views on possible goals for the RFA, showed the top five to be (1) marketing and promotion of regional Foresight; (2) information and exchange on best practice; (3) networking of regions engaged in Foresight; (4) information on Foresight methods; and (5) Foresight training and seminars. These results are closely aligned to those we obtained in our demand review (see Chapter 2). Despite these clearly defined goals, the status and future activities of the RFA are still uncertain. Besides the survey, the RFA has to date only published a newsletter, with the promise of further editions to come in

66 As for networking, the EC s mapping project has helped, as have a few pan-european Foresight projects funded by the EC. Occasional conferences continue to be organised, although these are far less frequent than a few years earlier. Some enterprising centres have established networks on particular Foresight themes for example, the Centre of Technology Assessment in Germany set up a Regional Foresight Association in 2003, which still produces a newsletter twice a year (see Box 8). However, without financial support, it has been unable to do much more than this. Meanwhile, the coaching partnership approach championed by DG RTD s in its 2003 Blueprints Group has failed to be widely adopted. Difficulties in initiating and organising such partnerships deter many Commission officials from even contemplating them, in spite of the Blueprints Group s apparent success. Scenario 2 The Gazette In this scenario, the EFA (or something like it) has been launched as an online information service covering Foresight issues and events. It is loosely modelled on an online service developed in France in 2002 (see Box 9), but is more extensive in scope. It is hosted at JRC-IPTS, where a supervised intern is responsible for its maintenance and vitality. This makes the service cheap to operate and it is funded directly from the JRC-IPTS budget. The service is tightly linked to DG RTD s monitoring and mapping project, and features new briefings and events to emerge from this work. But subscribers to the service can also use it to advertise their own events and publications, which in fact constitute more than two-thirds of the content of the web site. Subsequently, there are sections on new publications, on training events and other workshops/conferences, and on links to other Foresight activities. This comprehensiveness means that the service becomes the first portal of choice for anyone wanting to know more about Foresight in Europe and beyond. Box 9: Prospective-Foresight Network (France) The Prospective-Foresight Network is an association founded in 2002 by researchers at LIPSOR (CNAM) see Chapter 3. Its overall aim is to develop the philosophy and use of Foresight as a decision-making aid in preparing for the future. It is targeted at government organisations, companies, schools and universities, and public and private associations, both in France and abroad. However, anyone with an interest in the Foresight field is invited to join, whether a practitioners, theoretician, or user. The Network currently provides an interactive space of communication and information exchange via the internet. The internet site has a number of discussion groups focused on particular themes. They are used by those who wish to improve their knowledge in Foresight, and to share their experiences together. In addition, a directory of members is available. Finally, a newsletter is produced periodically. One of its main aims is to promote the Foresight practitioner community in France and abroad. Around two thousand people from more than seven hundred organisations are signed up to the service, which is free. They receive a monthly update that provides them with hyperlinks to new developments featured on the web site. But the portal is more 62

67 than just a message board. It also has dedicated spaces for discussion groups. Such groups tend to be initiated by users of the service, who then select a moderator amongst themselves. Anyone signed up to the message board is free to join any of the discussion groups. When traffic has ceased within a discussion group, it is archived for future reference. In addition to discussion groups, the portal also includes an agony aunt, or helpdesk, service. This is manned by four experienced Foresight practitioners who answer queries from those signed up to the service. Typically, no more than two queries are posted each week, with each taking on average minutes to deal with. The Foresight experts are each paid three days per annum to cover their time. Finally, to complement DG RTD s mapping and monitoring of Foresight activities, the service has a directory of members. This operates at two levels: (1) a basic level for those who want just to list their names and affiliations; and (2) a résumé level for those who wish to feature their expertise and experiences as Foresight practitioners. Standard self-completion web forms are used to collect this data, which is then searchable against keywords and a map of Europe. Scenario 3 The Orchestrator In this scenario, the EFA assumes a much more proactive role in European Foresight. The main aim of the EFA is to initiate and maintain an ongoing dialogue between existing capacity-building actors (and between existing and aspirant providers), with a view to (a) enrich existing training courses and other capacity-building initiatives; (b) develop learning partnerships between existing and aspirant training providers; and (c) develop a nucleus of reference (e.g. guidelines on good practice, quality standards, teaching materials, etc.) that serves a European community of trainers and practitioners. This scenario has some commonality with the current aspirations of the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), which is looking to establish a crossnational Masters programme in Futures Studies that will be delivered in several locations across 4-5 continents (see Box 10). But The Orchestrator EFA is more ambitious still. Thus, in addition to the online services offered in The Gazette Scenario, The Orchestrator Scenario sees the EFA conduct face-to-face meetings and workshops. In practice, this means that the EFA organises annual workshops between training providers, where course development proposals are discussed and debated. The aim here is two-fold: (1) for existing training programmes to broaden their scope and to improve their content through mutual learning; and (2) for common course modules to be developed and deployed across Europe by different centres. Both the executive and academic education markets are covered. The EFA also organises a partnership assistance programme, where existing centres coach aspirant training centres in their development of training modules. Although there is an emphasis on improving training offerings, the EFA is careful not to destroy the diversity that marks the European Foresight scene. Indeed, it seeks to broaden awareness of this diversity through its actions. 63

68 Box 10: The World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) Founded in 1967, the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) is an organisation of some 500 individuals and 60 institutions around the world whose mission is to promote futures education and research. It constitutes a global network of practicing futurists researchers, teachers, scholars, policy analysts, activists and others that seeks to Promote a higher level of futures consciousness in general Stimulate cooperative research activities in all fields of futures studies Plan and hold regional and global futures studies conferences and courses Encourage the democratization of future-oriented thinking and acting Stimulate awareness of the urgent need for futures studies in governments and international organizations, as well as other decision making and educational groups and institutions, to resolve problems at local, national, regional, and global levels, and Assist local and global futures research activities. The WFSF is classified as a Category II Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with the United Nations (UN), has formal consultative status with UNESCO, and enjoys close cooperation with the UN University, UNDP, UNEP, UNITAR, ILO, FAO and WHO. Throughout its history, WFSF has been supported by various national, regional, and international groups such as The Club of Rome, Futuribles, the University of Hawaii, and the Turku School of Economics in Finland. However, to ensure independence, general WFSF activities are covered mainly by membership fees from individuals and institutions, and by the organisation hosting the Secretariat. Expenses of conferences (global and special), seminars, courses, and research projects are generally covered by the participants themselves and the local organisations. The WFSF also seeks and accepts grants for specific purposes. The EFA is governed by a small steering committee of 6-8 persons, drawn from the EC and the wider Foresight community. It is jointly funded by (1) the EC, which pays for networking activities, i.e. travel and subsistence to attend meetings and workshops, and the online message board; and (2) the training centres themselves, which spend time and money developing new courses and delivery mechanisms from which they wish to profit. By 2006, several new training centres have been established across the EU, especially in the new Member States and former Cohesion Countries. Activities range from the provision of executive short courses to the establishment of local information portals (in local languages) that part-mirror the contents of the EU-wide message board. A number of universities and business schools have also introduced Foresight modules embedded in other course programmes. Some course modules (both in the executive and academic sectors) have been adapted from European-wide modules collectively developed by the EFA network. Still others are delivered online, with well-established providers, such as FFRC and Futuribles, outsourcing some modules. 64

69 Scenario 4 The Player In this scenario, the EFA is more than just an organisation that adds value to existing Foresight training initiatives. It also designs and delivers its own training courses and other capacity-building measures. To do this, it identifies training gaps that market mechanisms are unlikely to fill in the near future and designs courses and other activities to fill these. As in The Gazette Scenario, it also acts as an information point and discussion forum, engaging both practitioners and users of Foresight. However, the EFA does not get involved in orchestrating the Foresight training scene in Europe, but is, rather, another player that adds to the training provision on offer. The EFA is led by a small cohort of existing training centres, similar in size and composition to the group assembled for the pilot study. They design short courses (2-5 days each) on Foresight methods, on managing and organising Foresight exercises, and on utilisation of results. They have also developed an online training module, drawing upon the various guidebooks published over the previous few years, the results of the COST Action on Foresight methodology, and UNIDO efforts at designing distance learning modules. Those attending short courses are encouraged to do the online course first before embarking upon face-to-face courses. The EFA is solely concerned with the executive training market and does not get involved in academic or classroom training. All courses are fee paying, including the online training module, which costs 200. Courses are generally charged at 200 per day per person, although some variation is possible depending upon the subject area and the target audience. Course fees allow the EFA to cover around 75 per cent of its running costs, with the remaining costs met by subsidy from the EC and/or Member States. The EC contribution is used to (a) subsidise some course participants, e.g. from the new Member States, and (b) to pay for course development and annual meetings between teachers. On average, two 3-5 day courses are organised each year, with about 30 people attending each. As courses are modularised, participants can choose to attend just the first or last parts, depending on their training needs. The EFA also awards certificates of attendance, although these have little academic value in themselves. To keep costs low, some teachers are beamed in using video-conference facilities, which are now increasingly widespread at the right price and with sufficient quality. Courses reflect the wide experiences and traditions of Foresight and Futures Studies in Europe, drawing upon a pool of teachers that extends beyond the organisational boundaries of the training centres running the EFA. Courses are very practicallyoriented, with participants encouraged to learn through problem-based approaches. In some special cases, the EFA organises courses for other organisations, such as UNIDO and UNESCO. These organisations essentially outsource course organisation and management to the EFA for a fixed fee. National and regional governments, and even some major European companies, also hire the services of the EFA from time to time. In all, one or two courses are organised in this way each year. 65

70 Scenario 5 The Impresario In this scenario, the EFA is the main player in raising the awareness of Foresight across European society and in providing Foresight training. As in The Gazette Scenario, it acts as an online information provider and discussion forum. As in The Player Scenario, it organises its own courses and workshops. And as in The Orchestrator Scenario, it looks to better co-ordinate existing and evolving Foresight capacitybuilding activities across Europe. Essentially, The Impresario Scenario paints a picture of an EFA that co-ordinates most capacity-building activity in Europe, and perhaps most closely aligns to the ambitious project of the europrospective consortium (see Box 11). The EFA in this guise has a full-time secretariat of two persons plus an administrator and an intern. These are funded by the EC and are located in the JRC-IPTS. Despite its location in JRC-IPTS, the EFA secretariat is ultimately accountable to a steering committee of senior EC officials and participating practitioner organisations. The latter are elected to the steering committee on a biannual basis. Around forty centres across Europe have become affiliated EFA training points (including the partners on this pilot project), with at least one training point in each of the EU28 countries (in some places, such as France, Germany and the UK, there are several). The EFA badge becomes a sign of quality and is widely used by those who are members. Courses continue to be offered by existing training centres, but these now undergo peer review before receiving EFA accreditation. Existing courses are also widely reproduced and adapted for delivery across Member States, where teaching can be done in the home language. By now, a broad suite of short courses is on offer in English and, to a lesser extent, in the other main European languages. These are targeted at both single nationality and multinational audiences. Besides short courses, ambitious distance learning programmes have been developed, delivered partly online, but also through summer schools and/or contacts with a local training point. These broaden the EFA s market beyond the physical boundaries of Europe. And academic modules have been developed that are beginning to be used as the basis for new courses in several universities across Europe and beyond. During 2006, around 40 short courses have been offered, distributed across virtually every member of the EU28. As in The Player Scenario, courses are largely selffunding through tuition fees, although there is great variation in the amounts that are charged across the Member States (reflecting local costs). The EFA conducts periodic demand reviews to identify new needs and new markets for its activities. With this information, it can conduct an aggressive marketing campaign, with a presence at many European conferences and a widely distributed newsletter. Given these extra tasks, the EFA is reliant upon more public funding than in The Player Scenario, at least for the first few years, where the EC contribution has reached 60% of total funding. The Impresario EFA also plays a leading role in discipline-building activities, to include developing new methods and approaches, and assisting the diffusion of Foresight thinking and practice into a wider policy arena. It drafts five-yearly Foresight Manifestos to help guide research and practitioner activities in the shortmedium term. Drawing upon these activities, the EFA provides a nucleus of reference for Foresight practitioners and users, providing (a) guidance on good practice and 66

71 quality control, and (b) resources for others to use, e.g. megatrend studies, existing scenarios, online tools such as Delphi software, etc. Box 11: europrospective In 2001, the Jules-Destrée Institute (Belgium) and the futures studies research centre progective (France) formed a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG), in order to develop and promote Futures Studies and research (esp. French prospective) in Europe. Known as europrospective, the Group also included: the Futures Studies Centre of the Budapest University of Economic Sciences (Hungary), the Faculty of the Built Environment of the Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland), Z_punkt GmbH (Germany), Periscopi (Spain), and Scénarios + Vision (France). europrospective was a very ambitious project, having four main activities: Information and exchange about futures studies and research, especially through the management and coordination of a multilingual website. This clearinghouse provided links to existing web sites, books, activities and people devoted to Foresight and prospective all over the world. Promotion of existing high-quality Foresight and prospective practices, both for the human values they carry and for the rigour of their methods; organisation of events such as targeted European seminars, international conferences; and publication of a collection of books developing innovative visions of Futures Studies and research. Organisation of a strong and permanent network between European and non-european futurists (academics and professionals) in order to develop exchanges, to structure both supply and demand, to systematise efforts that were considered to be scattered, and to help revitalisation of the field. The fostering of a professional ability in Futures Studies and research among its potential practitioners and users through the promotion of handbooks presenting concepts, methods and experiences in the field, and through the organisation of training seminars, and the animation of working groups. In addition, europrospective, in partnership with the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), had a long-term aim to provide e-futures courses and to develop an international certification on Futures Studies through the establishment of a World Futures University. The goal of the project was to develop and promote the teaching of Futures Studies both in university and in secondary schools. This open university would mix real classrooms together with open learning, in order to bring together the main courses of Futures Studies existing in the world and give them a special value. It would also be a resource centre to help teachers and adults to improve their knowledge of Futures Studies, providing materials, examples of best practices, clearinghouses, lists of teachers around the world and a discussion forum. At the time of writing (October 2003), europrospective is under reconstruction after some reshuffling of membership. This reconstruction is necessary on account of europrospective being an EEIG, which is a form of legal organisation similar to that of a company. Each of the scenarios is summarised in Table 6 below. 67

72 Table 6: Summary of the EFA Scenarios Gazette Orchestrator Player Impresario Information Service Web site and e- mail updates Web site and e- mail updates Web site and e- mail updates Web site and e- mail updates Discussion Forums Electronic discussion group Workshops and e-discussion E-discussion and trainer meetings E-discussion; w/shops & confs Exec Education Short Courses None None Face-to-face and online courses Face-to-face and online courses Academic Courses None None None Modules developed Course Development None Assists existing training centres Designs its own Ex. Ed. courses Designs its own courses Awareness Raising Monthly bulletins bulletin; coaching bulletin; teaching Newsletter, conferences, etc. Discipline Building Discussions thru mail lists E-lists; meetings between trainers E-lists; course development Foresight Manifesto Nucleus of Reference None Yes No Yes Help-Desk Small team of experts Small team of experts Small team of experts Small team of experts Coaching None Between training centres only None Between training centres only Network Trainer Centres Links None Community of centres develops Community of centres develops Community of centres develops Extent of Active Involvement EC plus helpdesk experts EC plus training centres EC plus training centres EC plus centres of Foresight Face-to-face Interaction None Workshops and meetings Courses; workshops Courses; many different events Remote Interaction Everything is done online E-lists and other e-forums used E-forums and online teaching E-forums and online teaching Public Funding from EC Self and Private Funding Low Medium Low High None Medium High Medium 68

73 7.4 Summary conclusions This report has sought to highlight the lessons learnt from a pilot study of Foresight capacity-building actions, with a view to informing policy decisions on the establishment of a permanent and sustainable European Foresight Academy. The study included organising two awareness-raising workshops and a training course, preparing a Foresight Reader, and setting-up a project web site. These activities were planned against the background of a review of (a) existing Foresight training provision and (b) latent demand for Foresight training. Several recommendations have been made in light of the activities carried out, which will not be repeated here (see, in particular, Sections 4.3, 5.3, and 6.4). Based upon these findings, five scenarios have been elaborated that suggest different options for the shape and activities of a future European Foresight Academy. These range from leaving things as they are to constructing a rather elaborate institution with co-ordination and delivery functions. We have made no recommendations in light of the scenarios; rather, we invite readers to make up their own minds on the EFA they would prefer. With this in mind, we make one final recommendation: that this document, and particularly the scenarios, be distributed to Foresight practitioners, sponsors, trainers, and users in order to elicit their opinions on the shape of a future EFA. To augment this consultation, a further meeting should be organised in early 2004, to include project partners and major stakeholders. This will provide an opportunity for some of the evidence and ideas contained within this report to be discussed more fully, and perhaps for some broad course of action to be set on the road to a permanent and sustainable European Foresight Academy. 69

74 Annexe: Supporting materials Box 12: Interview protocol used for senior decision makers and research managers 1. Visioning Does your organisation/research field/national system have a long-term (at least 5-10 years) strategic vision? If so, how is this formulated? (the process, the participants, etc.) What effects does this vision have in your organisation/research field/national system? 2. Futures Thinking What (formal and informal) processes does your organisation/research field/national system use to identify trends and drivers that are likely to have an impact on your organisation, etc.? To what extent does your organisation/research field/national system attempt to anticipate future threats and opportunities that might affect your organisation etc.? What would be the typical time-horizon of such analyses? How do such analyses affect what your organisation/research field does NOW? 3. Prioritisation What approaches does your organisation/research field/national system use for setting strategic priorities? Who is involved in this process? How are these strategic priorities translated into programmes and projects? How is buy-in (enrolment) ensured with respect to these priorities? 4. Collaboration (networking) What mechanisms do you have in place to encourage networking and collaboration both within and outside of your organisation? Please comment on wider mechanisms at the research field/national system levels How do you think these arrangements could be improved? 5. Familiarity with foresight/prospective approaches Has your organisation/research field undertaken any sort of foresight exercise at any time? If so, what happened? Could you see ways that foresight could be usefully deployed in your organisation/research field/national system? If so, what barriers would need to be overcome to initiate foresight? 6. Usefulness of foresight training Do you think that your organisation/community could benefit from training in the use/management of foresight tools and techniques? If so, what sorts of things would you like to see offered on such a training course? Do you think other groups/communities would have an interest in this type of training? If yes, could you specify which ones? 70

75 Box 13: Survey questions posed to existing practitioners 1. Are you familiar with any current Foresight training provision within Europe? If yes, please list these below, outlining some of their main features in terms of (a) what is taught; (b) who is the target audience; (c) what is the duration; and (d) your overall impressions? 2. Who, in your view, could most benefit from Foresight training? Please justify your answer, indicating possible mechanisms for enrolling such groups into Foresight training programmes. 3. In light of your answers above, what further Foresight training provision would you like to see? And how could a European Foresight Academy be configured to meet this training agenda? 4. What could you (and/or your organisation) potentially contribute to the establishment and operation of a European Foresight Academy? 5. How would you (and/or your organisation) hope to benefit from a European Foresight Academy? For example, could you envisage such an Academy providing mutual learning on state-of-the-art methods? 6. Do you have any further comments or suggestions? Box 14: Survey questions posed to Candidate Country prospective practitioners 1. As far as you know, has any sort of foresight exercise been undertaken at any time by your organisation / research field / national system of innovation? If yes, what happened? 2. Based on what you already know, do you think that foresight could be usefully deployed by your organisation / research field / national system of innovation? Please elaborate, indicating the barriers that would need to be overcome. 3. Do you think that your organisation or other national agencies could benefit from training and/or knowledge sharing in the use / management of foresight tools and techniques? 4. If yes, please indicate (a) Who you think could benefit from a European Foresight Academy; and (b) The sorts of training / knowledge sharing programmes such an Academy should offer. Box 15: Survey questions posed to members of the IRE Network 1. As far as you know, has your organisation or region undertaken any sort of foresight exercise at any time? If yes, what happened? 2. Based on what you already know, do you think that foresight could be usefully deployed by your organisation and/or region? Please elaborate, indicating the barriers that would need to be overcome. 3. Do you think that your organisation or other regional players could benefit from training and/or knowledge sharing in the use / management of foresight tools and techniques? 4. If yes, please indicate (a) Who you think could benefit from a European Foresight Academy; and (b) The sorts of training / knowledge sharing programmes such an Academy should offer. 71

76 Regional Foresight Training Workshop May 2003 European Commission, JRC-Ispra, Varese, Italy The challenges facing regions There is a new regional awakening in Europe. With it come new aspirations, but also new responsibilities. For example, issues of sustainable economic development, social justice, and democratic renewal are now increasingly addressed at the regional level. In other words, many of the big issues that have been traditionally the preserve of nation states are now being addressed by sub-national regions. What role is there for Foresight in regions? Foresight is a systematic, participatory process involving intelligence gathering and vision building for the medium-to-long-term future. Crucially, Foresight is aimed at informing present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions. It can be used to systematically assess the strengths and weaknesses of a given region with a view to setting strategic priorities and achievable goals. Foresight can also be used for wiring-up regional innovation systems that is, for getting research, business, voluntary and policy communities working in closer harmony. But more than this, Foresight contributes towards a new mode of inclusive, strategic governance, where policy formulation becomes more attuned to the realities of policy delivery. This is an invaluable asset in today s social, economic and political environment, where policy and investment decisions tend to be distributed across numerous (regional) actors. The European Foresight Academy (EFA) In recent events organised by the European Commission, a recurring request from participants has concerned the need for better diffusion of Foresight know-how on a stable and continuous basis. One way to meet this demand has been to establish a European Foresight Academy (EFA) whose aim is to provide training in the management and organisation of Foresight, as well as to supply knowledge on state-of-the-art tools and methods. The EFA also constitutes a useful forum for exchange of Foresight experiences across Europe and beyond. Who should attend this workshop? This training workshop provides an intensive, practically-oriented introduction to regional Foresight and will be useful for those thinking about organising and managing Foresight activities in their own regions. Workshop structure and content The workshop will run over three days and will cover the following main areas: Day 1 challenges of the future; rationales for regional foresight; case histories of regional foresight; scoping regional foresight Day 2 methods used in foresight studies when to use them and what to expect; useful resources and new methodological developments Day 3 outputs and their interpretation; reporting and dissemination; making a difference strategy and implementation Teaching staff The EFA s founding members include leading European institutions in the practice and teaching of Foresight and Strategic Prospectives. Practitioners from these and other centres will deliver lectures and facilitate practical sessions. Further enquiries and applications Further information can be obtained from: Dr. Michael Keenan PREST, University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL United Kingdom t f e. michael.keenan@man.ac.uk Or by visiting the EFA s web site at: 72