The terms “technology foresight” and “foresight” are used
interchangeably. The former has been largely superseded among
policy makers by the plain label of “foresight”, on account of
the increasingly wide application of these sorts of techniques
to non-technological domains. Indeed, there is even wide
recognition that technology foresight exercises often take as
much account of economic, social and cultural issues as they do
technology developments, thereby rendering the label “technology
foresight” as somewhat misleading.
Two popular definitions of foresight are provided by UK-based
researchers. The most often quoted is that from Ben Martin
(1995) at SPRU, who describes research foresight as “the process
involved in systematically attempting to look into the
longer-term future of science, technology, the economy and
society with the aim of identifyingthe
areas of strategic research and the emerging generic
technologies likely to yield the greatest economic and social
benefits.” Similarly, Luke Georghiou (1996) at PREST describes
technology foresight as “a systematic means of assessing
those scientific and technological developments which
could have a strong impact on industrial competitiveness, wealth
creation and quality of life.”
There are five important aspects to these definitions:
Attempts to look into the future must be systematic to be
called “foresight”. This distinguishes foresight from the
endogenous scenario building that we are all engaged in when
planning our everyday lives.
Foresight must be concerned with the longer term, which is
generally considered to be beyond normal planning horizons.
Foresight time horizons therefore typically range between
five and thirty years.
Science/technology push should be balanced with market pull.
Whilst this is a rather crude way to think about the
innovation process, the point is that technology foresight
should not be dominated by science and technology (SSTT)
alone. Attention also needs to be paid to socio-economic
factors that are well known to shape innovations.
Foresight concentrates on emerging generic
technologies where there is a legitimate case for government
support. This is because companies are often unwilling to
fund the strategic research that underpins emerging generic
technologies.
Attention must be given to social impacts, not just those
concerned with wealth creation. This has led to some recent
foresight exercises to adopt more problem oriented
perspectives from the outset, for example, focusing upon
issues such as crime prevention, education and skills,
ageing societies, etc.
These aspects have been somewhat superseded in recent times,
with definitions of foresight tending to place more emphasis on
system building and process benefits. For example, according to
the FOREN Practical Guide to Regional Foresight, foresight is
said to involve five essential elements (2001):
Structured anticipation and projections of
long-term social, economic and technological developments
and needs.
Interactive
and participative methods of exploratory debate,
analysis and study, involving a wide variety of
stakeholders, are also characteristic of foresight (as
opposed to many traditional futures studies that tend to be
the preserve of experts).
These interactive approaches involve forging new social
networks. Emphasis on the networking role varies across
foresight programs. It is often taken to be equally, if not
more, important than the more formal products such as
reports and lists of action points.
The formal products of foresight go beyond the presentation
of scenarios, and beyond the preparation of plans. What is
crucial is the elaboration of a guiding strategic vision,
to which there can be a shared sense of commitment
(achieved, in part, through the networking processes).
This shared vision is not Utopian. There has to be explicit
recognition and explication of the implications for
“present-day decisions and actions” (emphasis original).
Foresight is often confused with other future-oriented
activities, such as forecasting, futures studies, and strategic
planning. Foresight should not be confused with forecasting,
which tends to be more fixed in its assumptions on how the
future will unfold. Indeed, forecasters aspire for precision in
their attempts to predict how the world might look at some point
in the future. By contrast, foresight does not seek to predict:
instead, it is a process that seeks to create shared visions of
the future, visions that stakeholders are willing to endorse by
the actions they choose to take today. In this way, foresight is
not concerned with predicting the future; rather, it is
concerned with creating it.
The important thing to note is that foresight does not replace
forecasting, futures studies, or strategic planning. Each
activity has its role, which in many instances can be mutually
supportive.
One of the more flexible definitions captures key elements of
the process that are usually neglected in some of the more
commonly used formulations:
“The foresight process involves intense iterative periods of
open reflection, networking, consultation and discussion,
leading to the joint refining
of future visions
and the common ownership
of strategies,
with the aim of exploiting long-term opportunities opened up
through the impact of science, technology and innovation on
society ... It is the discovery
of common space for open thinking on the future
and the incubation
of strategic
approaches ...” (Jennifer Cassingena Harper, Malta Council for
Science and Technology)
Of particular importance here is the stress placed upon the way
in which joint foresight activities are linked to the joint
formulation and ownership of strategies. This perspective avoids
the treatment of foresight and its implementation as separate
processes without serious attempts to build bridges between or
to link the two.
Notes:
UNIDO Technology Foresight Manual, Organization and Methods,
Vol. 1, Vienna, 2005, p. 8-10
