A practical guide to regional foresight.
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: EU regional policy, political science, regional development, regional integration, regional investment, regional planning

FFFFFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNN
FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt            ffffffffffffoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrr            RRRRRRRRRRRReeeeeeeeeeeeggggggggggggiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll            DDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllooooooooooooppppppppppppmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttt            NNNNNNNNNNNNeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttwwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk

AAAAAAAAAAAA            PPPPPPPPPPPPrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiccccccccccccaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll            GGGGGGGGGGGGuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeee            ttttttttttttoooooooooooo            RRRRRRRRRRRReeeeeeeeeeeeggggggggggggiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll            FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt

EEEEEEEEEEEEdddddddddddd iiiiiiiiiiii tttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeee dddddddddddd             bbbbbbbbbbbb yyyyyyyyyyyy

JJJJJJJJJJJJ RRRRRRRRRRRR CCCCCCCCCCCC ------------IIIIIIIIIIII PPPPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS
JJJJJJJJJJJJ aaaaaaaaaaaa mmmmmmmmmmmm eeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss              PPPPPPPPPPPP ............              GGGGGGGGGGGG aaaaaaaaaaaa vvvvvvvvvvvv iiiiiiiiiiii gggggggggggg aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn ,,,,,,,,,,,,              FFFFFFFFFFFF aaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbb iiiiiiiiiiii aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaa              SSSSSSSSSSSS cccccccccccc aaaaaaaaaaaa pppppppppppp oooooooooooo llllllllllll oooooooooooo

PPPPPPPPPPPPRRRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT
MMMMMMMMMMMM iiiiiiiiiiii cccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhh aaaaaaaaaaaa eeeeeeeeeeee llllllllllll              KKKKKKKKKKKK eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee nnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn ,,,,,,,,,,,,              IIIIIIIIIIII aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn              MMMMMMMMMMMM iiiiiiiiiiii llllllllllll eeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss

CCCCCCCCCCCC MMMMMMMMMMMM             IIIIIIIIIIII nnnnnnnnnnnn tttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeee rrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaa ttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooo nnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaa llllllllllll
FFFFFFFFFFFF rrrrrrrrrrrr aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn çççççççççççç oooooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiii ssssssssssss              FFFFFFFFFFFF aaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrr hhhhhhhhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiii ,,,,,,,,,,,,              DDDDDDDDDDDD eeeeeeeeeeee nnnnnnnnnnnn iiiiiiiiiiii ssssssssssss              LLLLLLLLLLLL eeeeeeeeeeee cccccccccccc oooooooooooo qqqqqqqqqqqq

SSSSSSSSSSSSvvvvvvvvvvvv iiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllluuuuuuuuuuuu pppppppppppp pppppppppppp oooooooooooo             IIIIIIIIIIII ttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaa lllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaa
MMMMMMMMMMMM iiiiiiiiiiii cccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhh eeeeeeeeeeee llllllllllll eeeeeeeeeeee              CCCCCCCCCCCC aaaaaaaaaaaa pppppppppppp rrrrrrrrrrrr iiiiiiiiiiii aaaaaaaaaaaa tttttttttttt iiiiiiiiiiii ,,,,,,,,,,,,              TTTTTTTTTTTT eeeeeeeeeeee rrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss aaaaaaaaaaaa              DDDDDDDDDDDD iiiiiiiiiiii              BBBBBBBBBBBB aaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrr tttttttttttt oooooooooooo llllllllllll oooooooooooo mmmmmmmmmmmm eeeeeeeeeeee oooooooooooo

DDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeecccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr            222222222222000000000000000000000000111111111111

FFFFFFFFFFFF OOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRR EEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNN            NNNNNNNNNNNNeeeeeeeeeeee ttttttttttttwwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooo rrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk             (((((((((((( FFFFFFFFFFFF oooooooooooo rrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhh tttttttttttt            ffffffffffff oooooooooooo rrrrrrrrrrrr            RRRRRRRRRRRR eeeeeeeeeeee gggggggggggg iiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooo nnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaa llllllllllll            DDDDDDDDDDDD eeeeeeeeeeee vvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeee lllllllllllloooooooooooo pppppppppppp mmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee nnnnnnnnnnnn tttttttttttt))))))))))))
EEEEEEEEEEEE uuuuuuuuuuuu rrrrrrrrrrrr oooooooooooo pppppppppppp eeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn              CCCCCCCCCCCC oooooooooooo mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiiiiii ssssssssssss ssssssssssss iiiiiiiiiiii oooooooooooo nnnnnnnnnnnn              RRRRRRRRRRRR eeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss eeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrr cccccccccccc hhhhhhhhhhhh              DDDDDDDDDDDD iiiiiiiiiiii rrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeee cccccccccccc tttttttttttt oooooooooooo rrrrrrrrrrrr aaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttt eeeeeeeeeeee              GGGGGGGGGGGG eeeeeeeeeeee nnnnnnnnnnnn eeeeeeeeeeee rrrrrrrrrrrr aaaaaaaaaaaa llllllllllll
SSSSSSSSSSSS TTTTTTTTTTTT RRRRRRRRRRRR AAAAAAAAAAAA TTTTTTTTTTTT AAAAAAAAAAAA              PPPPPPPPPPPP rrrrrrrrrrrr oooooooooooo gggggggggggg rrrrrrrrrrrr aaaaaaaaaaaa mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm eeeeeeeeeeee

Editorial Team contact details:
European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies (IPTS)
Edificio Expo-WTC
C/ Inca Garcilaso, s/n
E - 41092 Seville - Spain
http://www.jrc.es; and http://foren.jrc.es

PREST (Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology)
The University of Manchester, Mathematics Building,
Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
http://les1.man.ac.uk/PREST/

CM International
80 Rue Galliéni
92773 BOULOGNE-BILLANCOURT CEDEX – France
http://www.cm-intl.com/

Sviluppo Italia S.p.A.
Via Calabria, 46
00187 Roma – Italy
http://www.sviluppoitalia.it

Legal notice

Neither  the  European  Commission  nor  any  person  acting  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  is
responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

Report EUR 20128 EN

© European Communities, 2001

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

II

FOREWORD

Foresight  involves  constructively  bringing  awareness  of  long-term  challenges  and
opportunities into more immediate decision-making.  Foresight has attracted a great deal
of attention in recent years, and this Guide should be useful for many readers seeking to
brief  themselves  as  to  what  Foresight  is,  and  is  not,  or  to  judge  whether  a  particular
Foresight  activity  is  really  relevant  to  their  interests.  This  Guide  has  been  produced
bearing  in  mind  especially  the  needs  of  those  involved  in  forward  planning  and  strategy
development  at  regional  and  other  sub-national  territorial  levels.  It  is  aimed  more
specifically  at  potential  Foresight  practitioners  and  users.    It  sets  out  to  explain  how
Foresight (also known as prospective or prospective territoriale) can be implemented so
as to provide valuable inputs to strategy and policy planning in  regions,  municipalities  or
localities, as well as to mobilise collective strategic actions.

One of our objectives is to explain why you may wish to use Foresight at the sub-national
level.  Despite some significant regional activities, to date, the use of Foresight has been
mostly  visible  at  the  national  level.    Another  objective  is  to  provide  you  with  helpful
orientations  on  how  to  go  about  undertaking  a  regional  Foresight  activity,  to  point  out
where  the  pitfalls  lie,  as  well  as  the  merits,  and  to  explain  how  regional  Foresight  may
need  to  be  differentiated  from  national-level  Foresight.    This  Guide,  therefore,  tries  to
navigate you through the considerations you need to take into account in order to decide
what is best for your particular context.  It is neither a recipe book nor a toolbox.  We do
not  claim  to  provide  all  you  need  to  know  about  choosing  and  implementing  particular
Foresight  methods  –  though  the  Guide  does  point  to  where  you  can  obtain  such
information.    After  reading  the  Guide  you  will  not  be  an  instant  expert  in  Foresight
methodology.  Rather, you will understand:
•  How and why regional Foresight can be used,
•  What the different approaches to Foresight are,
•  When and where they may be appropriate, and
•  How your own regional or local situation has to be taken into account in the design of a

Foresight process.

The  authors  of  this  Guide  -  drawn  from  both  the  Foresight  community  and  the  world  of
regional development planners - are all convinced of the need for wider use of Foresight
approaches.     We are  equally  convinced  of  the need  to  undertake adequate  preparation
before launching Foresight, to learn from each other’s experiences, and to achieve much
better  links  between  the  technical  elements  of  Foresight  and  its  practical  application.
Foresight  tools  are  highly  relevant  to  a  fast-changing,  knowledge-driven  world:  they  can
help  policymaking  be  better-informed  and  more  proactive.    In  order  to  do  this,  we  need
strategic use of Foresight, and this Practical Guide is intended to help this be the case.

We welcome feedback on your experiences in using it.

For further information on the project behind this Guide, see:
http://foren.jrc.es

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A  very  special  thanks  goes  to  all  those  who  have  participated  in  FOREN  over  the  past  two  years,
contributing  in  various  ways  to  the  elaboration  of  this  ‘Practical  Guide  to  Regional  Foresight’:  Ms.
Helena  Acheson  Forfas  Dublin;  Mr.  John  Ashcroft  RIS  Yorkshire  Humberside  York;  Ms.  Carlotta  Ca'
Zorzi TINWEB Rome; Dr. Kerstin Cuhls Fraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung
Karlsruhe;  Dr.  Tibor  Dory  Centre  for  Regional  Studies,  West  Hungarian  Research  Institute  Gyor,
Hungary;  Ms.  Gabriella  Eglesz  National  Committee  for  Technological  Development  Budapest;  Mr.
Kevin Fisher Welsh Development Agency Cardiff; Prof. Gregorio Garcia Herdugo, Rodriguez Instituto
de  Desarrollo  Regional  Seville;  Dr.  Attila  Havas,  INTECH;  Dr.  Fred  Jonkhart  Province  of  Flevoland
Lelystad;  Ms.  Ana  Morato  Observatorio  de  Prospectiva  Tecnológica  Industrial  Madrid;  Mr.  Tony
Newson, Welsh Development Agency; Mr. Gordon Ollivere RTC North Ltd. UK; Mr. Pasquale Orlando
Technopolis, Bari; Ms. Sonia Palomo Parque Tecnológico de Andalucía Málaga; Ms. Kathleen Quinlan
Enterprise  Ireland  Dublin;  Mr.  Martin  Rhisiart  Observatory  of  Innovation  and  Business  Development
Cardiff;  Mr.  Gareth  Roberts  European  Commission,  Luxembourg;  Ms.  Paula  Rodriguez  Instituto  de
Desarrollo Regional Seville; Dr. Carlos Roman Rodriguez Instituto de Desarrollo Regional Seville; Prof.
Claudio  Roveda,  Fondazione  Rosselli  Milan,  Italy;  Prof.  Ahti  Salo  Helsinki  University  of  Technology
Espoo; Ms. Heike Thumm Wirtschaftsförderung Region Stüttgart; Ms. Marja Toivonen Employment and
Economic  Development  Centre  Helsinki;  Mr.  Marc  Van  Lieshout  Information  and  Communication,
Institute of Strategy, Policy and Technology, TNO, Delft; Mr. Paolo Vercesi, Fondazione Rosselli, Milan;
Prof.  Andrew  Webster  University  of  York.  We  also  thank  Mr.  Dylan  Henderson  of  CMI  UK  for  his
contribution.

We  would  like to acknowledge the  valuable feedback  on  an  earlier  version  provided  by  experts  from
different regions of Europe:

Mr.  Werner  Bächle  Baden  Wuttenberg,  Germany;  Mr.  Alfred  Braatz  Daimler  Chrysler  AG,  Stuttgart,
Germany; Dr. Virginia Chambers Cardiff, United Kingdom; Dr. Tim Claypole Cardiff, United Kindgom;
Mr Alberto Fernández  UET – Basque Government Agency Spain; Mr. Brian Foley South West Ireland;
Dr.  Gehrhard  Fuchs  Stuttgart,  Germany;  Mr.  Angelo  Gatto  Lombardy,  Italy;  Mr.  Carlo  Mango  Cariplo
Foundation,  Lombardy,  Italy;  Mr.  Vicente  Granados  Cabeza  Andalusia,  Spain;  Mr.  Jukka  Hyytiäinen
Education and Culture Region Provincial State Office of Southern Finland, Finland; Mr.Frank Iwer IMU
Institut  Stuttgart,  Germany;  Mr.  Jari  Kaivo-oja  Finland    Futures  Research  Centre  Turku  School  of
Economics  and  Business  Finland;  Ms.  Sinikka  Kauranen-Pennanen  Employment  and  Economic
Development Centre for Uusimaa (Helsinki Region), Finland; Mr. Mika Kautonen Tampere Region (The
University of Tampere),  Finland;  Mr.  Kimmo  Helsinki  region  Uusimaa,  Finland;  Mr.  Marcello  La  Rosa
Piedmont,  Italy;  Prof.  Juan  Larrañeta  Andalusia,  Spain;  Mr.  Jari  Lindqvist  Helsinki  metropolitan  area,
Finland;  Mr.  Keijo  Mäkelä  Southern  Finland,  Finland;  Mr.  Jouni  Marttinen  Finland    Futures  Research
Centre  Turku  School  of  Economics  and  Business,  Finland;  Mr.  José  Antonio  Moreno  Delgado
Albengoa, Andalusia, Spain; Mr. Jouko Nieminen Employment and Economic Development Centre for
Uusimaa (Helsinki metropolitan area) Finland; Ms. Pirkko Oilinki-Nenonen Employment and Economic
Development  Centre  for  Northern  Ostrobothnia  (Oulu  region)  Finland;  Ms.  Agnes  Pechmann  TA  –
Akademie  Stuttgart  Germany;  Mr.  Felipe  Romera  Andalusia,  Spain;  Ms.  Minna  Salorinne  City  of
Helsinki, Finland; Mr. Pietro Terna Piedmont Italy; Ms. Ilmi Tikkanen Regional Council of Itä-Uusimaa,
Finland; Ms. Tarja Tuominen Employers’ organisation (service sector), Finland.

Finally,  we  would  like  to  acknowledge  the  helpful  input  of  Dr.  Günter  Clar  (Research  Directorate
General, European Commission), and Prof. Armin Grunwald (ITAS, Germany).

IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The overall purpose of Regional Foresight is to provide valuable inputs into strategy and policy
planning  in  regions,  municipalities  and  localities,  while  also  mobilising  collective  strategic
actions.  This  “Practical  Guide”  aims  to  explain  how  Foresight  can  be  used  at  regional  and
other  sub-national  territorial  levels.  It  sets  out  different  approaches  to  Foresight,  when  and
where their use may be appropriate, and how local conditions have to be taken into account in
the design of a Foresight process.

Part I: Introducing Regional Foresight

Foresight is a systematic, participatory, future-intelligence-gathering and medium-to-
long-term  vision-building  process  aimed  at  present-day  decisions  and  mobilising  joint
actions  (Q1.1).  Foresight  arises  from  a  convergence  of  trends  underlying  recent
developments  in  the  fields  of  ‘policy  analysis’,  ‘strategic  planning’  and  ‘future  studies’.  It
brings  together  key  agents  of  change  and  various  sources  of  knowledge  in  order  to
develop  strategic  visions  and  anticipatory  intelligence.  Regional  Foresight  is  the
implementation  of  the  five  essential  elements  of  Foresight  -  anticipation,  participation,
networking,  vision  and  action  -  at  a  reduced  territorial  scale  where  proximity  factors
become determinant (Q1.2).

Foresight  tools  and  techniques  which  have  been  used  extensively  since  the  early  1990s  at
national level may also apply regionally, but the overall process design will strongly depend on
specific  regional  characteristics  (e.g.  its  degree  of  autonomy,  financial  competence,
infrastructure endowments, business profile, etc.  (Q1.3). “Region” may refer to a federal state,
a  metropolitan  area  or  some  other  sub  national  aggregation  with  an  historical,  economic
identity or a distinctive geographical dimension. The validity of Regional Foresight depends on
the  existence  of  a  minimal  degree  of  political,  economic  or  cultural  leverage  to  enable
initiatives and actions arising. It can also help to compensate for the  often unevenness, and
under-development  of,  regionally  based  institutions  for  informing  decisions  and  developing
policy (Q1.4)

The  difference  between  Foresight  and  other  planning  activities  relates  to  the  participative
dimension of Foresight, which is well adapted to the regional level (Q1.5). On the other hand,
Foresight demands orientations to policymaking that may be unfamiliar to regional actors who
are used to working within compartmentalised divisions. Foresight seeks to break down such
barriers (Q1.6). However, Foresight is only worthwhile when there is a possibility to act on the
results that it will generate (Q1.7).

Foresight can be applied to a huge range of topics (scientific, industrial, demographic, social,
political,  cultural  factors)  (Q2.1).  While  it  can  be  used  to  inform  policymaking,  build
networks, and enhance local capabilities for tackling long-term issues it is not a magic
solution that can solve all social, economic or political problems of regions (Q2.2).

There are different types of Foresight. A first distinction can be made between activities that
are  more  or  less  bottom-up  or  top-down.  The  top-down  exercises  place  less  stress  on
interaction and involve highly formal methods such as the Delphi method (see Annexe). The
bottom-up exercises are more interactive - they take into account a greater number of views,
increase legitimacy and yield more process benefits but are more time consuming and more

V

difficult  to  organise  (Q2.3).  A  second  distinction  refers  to  activities  that  are  more  or  less
product or process-oriented. A mixture of both activities is often present: product orientation
is necessary if there is a need to inform specific decisions (a report, list of priorities); process
orientation is more suitable when there is a lack of networking between key actors (Q2.4). A
third  critical  distinction  can  be  made  between  methods  that  centre  on  examining  and
articulating 
the
investigating 
consequences of assumptions: a combination of both types is generally desirable (Q2.10).

the  views  of  experts,  versus 

those  rather  based  on 

Common  features  of  Foresight  include:  a  long-term  orientation,  the  examination  of  a  wide
range  of  factors,  the  drawing  on  widely-distributed  knowledge,  the  institutionalisation  and
creation  of  networks  and  the  use  of  formal  techniques/  methods  (Q2.5).  Formal  methods
provide more operational results, assess the consistency of different aspects of the vision, help
to  identify  where  more  knowledge  is  needed  and  legitimise  the  exercise  (Q2.6).  They  are
valuable to structure and stimulate parts of the more interactive Foresight process (Q2.7).

Exploratory methods (“outward bound”) begin with the present as a starting point and
move forward to the future whereas normative methods (“inward bound”) start with a
view of possible futures asking what trends and events would take us there (Q2.8).

Quantitative  methods  give  a  great  deal  of  weight,  an  ability  to  examine  rates  and
scales of changes but they limit the comprehension of social and political variables and
are not always reliable. Qualitative methods are used when data are hard to collect or
not  available.  Foresight  can  never  be  completely  dominated  by  quantitative methods:
the  mix  depends  on  the  access  of  relevant  expertise  and  the  nature  of  the  issues
(Q2.9).

The  choice  of  the  appropriate  balance  between  the  various  approaches  will  be
influenced  by  the  problems at  stake,  the resources available  and  the  political  context
(Q2.11).

Part II: Implementing Regional Foresight

Carefully  scoping  a  Regional  Foresight  activity  is  necessary  and  can  help  to  clarify  regional
challenges that may often not be obvious at the outset. For example, problems may be related
to  different  types  of  ‘critical  resource’  (local  institutions,  business  structure,  knowledge
infrastructure, social capital) on which local and regional development depends  (Q3.1).  In
scoping, it is necessary to assess whether challenges can be fully, or only partially, addressed
by regional players (Q3.2).

The objectives of Regional Foresight can be quite variable, but they should be clearly defined
at the outset (Q3.3). Regional Foresight activities tend to have multiple orientations, rather than
just  one,  which  we  have  called  social,  science  and  technology,  business  dynamics,
territorial vision. However, it is not uncommon for one of these dimensions to predominate in
any given exercise (Q3.4).

Regional Foresight can be arranged as an autonomous exercise or as a set of activities that
accompany  or  are  embedded  in  existing  policies,  programmes  and  strategy-making
processes (Q3.5). Foresight is also of more value to a region if it is ongoing rather than a one-
off activity. Ways to ensure continuity include fostering and embedding a “Foresight culture” in

VI

a  broad-based  manner  across  all  sectors  of  the  regional  community,  through  ongoing
‘centralised’ activities, and by reinforcing local sources of Foresight expertise (Q6.7).

The  themes  and  sectors  covered  in  regional  Foresight  are  quite  variable,  with  choices
tending to depend upon the objectives and orientation of the exercise. Some exercises have
covered around 20 areas, although fewer than 10 is more typical (Q3.6). The time horizon of
regional  Foresight  exercises  tends  to  vary  from  around  5  to  20  years  (Q3.7),  whilst  their
duration  is  typically  between  6  months  and  3  years  (although  it  can  become  a  continuous
activity) (Q3.9). Costs depend upon a number of factors, including the location of activities, the
scope of the exercise, the number of people in the project management team, the organisation
of events, and the selected approach (Q3.10). Sponsorship can come from both the public
and private sectors and can be very diversified (Q4.4).

Carrying  out  a  Foresight  exercise  involves  many  participants  –  the  number  can  vary  widely
from  some  tens  up  to  thousands  –  including  representatives  of  regional  governments,
universities,  businesses,  chambers  of  commerce,  local  media,  industry  associations,  NGOs
and citizens (Q3.8). The identity of key players will depend upon the objectives and orientation
of Foresight activities. As a general rule, the more leading local players that can be mobilised
the better. Three approaches for recruiting potential participants are commonly used, namely
personal contacts, nominations from stakeholders’, and more formal (transparent) processes,
such  as  co-nominaton  (a  variation  of  snow-ball  sampling)  (Q4.1).  Players  will  need  to  be
convinced of the worth of regional Foresight, so arguments in its favour should emphasise the
potential  benefits  to  be  gained  through  such  activities  (Q4.2).  Various  tools  can  be  used  to
promote regional Foresight more widely, including publications and traditional communication
tools (database, newsletters…), forums, participative events (hearings, seminars, conferences,
workshops, meetings…), and illustration of Foresight success stories in other regions (Q4.3).

its 

formal  structure  (roles  and  responsibilities), 

There  are  three  main  organisational  dimensions  in  any  Foresight  activity  that  need  to  be
considered: 
the  decision  processes
(management style), and resource procurement (sponsorship) (Q5.1). A number of formal and
informal  roles  can  be  discerned  in  regional  Foresight,  including  promoters,  stakeholders,
sponsors, steering committee, project team, champions, experts, process experts, monitoring
groups, etc. (Q5.2). Formal roles and responsibilities require careful definition so that players
know what they need to do and by when. Players should be frequently consulted throughout
the course of regional activities, although Foresight offers many ‘natural’ opportunities for doing
this.  Consultation is important, since it gives participants and wider stakeholders a sense of
ownership of the process and its outputs (Q4.5).

More  embedded-type  Foresight  activities  are  not  as  challenging  to  manage  as  a  more
autonomous  and  distributed  exercise,  which  will  require  the  deployment  of  project
management tools, such as the classical  PERT  (Q5.3).   Whatever  the type of exercise,  it  is
important  to  collect  all  the  existing  information  (passive)  before  producing  new  material
through experts and networks (active information) (Q5.4).

Regional Foresight exercises produce formal outputs (reports, website, press articles…) and
informal  outputs  (development  of  new  networks…)  (Q6.1).  Members  of  various  user-groups
should be involved in the Foresight process throughout and can help define the different types
of outputs that may be needed to target key groups (Q6.2).

VII

Although  largely  absent  in  the  cases  we  have  examined,  evaluation  of  regional  Foresight
activities has the potential to allow for an assessment of whether objectives were met, to learn
lessons on how the exercise was managed, and to define follow-up activities. Evaluation can
be  conducted  in  real-time  or  ‘post  hoc’,  with  both  approaches  having  their  pros  and  cons
(Q6.3 - 6.4). In any evaluation strategy, it is important to recognise that benefits from Foresight
tend to become apparent at different points in time and at different levels.  It is also important
to  keep  an  eye  on  unexpected  benefits  and  to  identify  ‘success  stories’  as  possible
‘demonstrators’ of positive outcomes (Q6.5). But expectations of Foresight can vary between
different  players  and  are  sometimes  rather  unrealistic.  It  is  therefore  helpful  to  have  a  clear
notion of the sorts of benefits that can reasonably be expected and to communicate these to
participants beforehand (Q6.6).

In conclusion, Foresight is a very evocative label for the rise to prominence of participative
methods and long-term  strategic futures  techniques,  in the  wake  of more traditional  ways  of
informing policy planning. It is currently highly-topical, but whether or not the label persists is
irrelevant  to  the  real  trends  which  are  radically  changing  delivery-timescale  and  format
requirements  for  information  on  future  threats  and  opportunities  which  decision-makers
require. Foresight, as a means to an end, is well adapted to these changing requirements. It
has proven itself at national level, and has begun to do so too at regional and other territorial
levels.

However, Foresight is likely to develop in a much greater variety of ways regionally than it has
at national level, and hence the need to stress what the essential features it should fulfil are.
This Guide has been drafted with all of this in mind. – It makes the case for regional foresight
without offering it as a panacea; it asks questions and suggests ways of answering them rather
than  offering  turn-key  solutions  which  won’t  always  work;  it  gives  case  descriptions  and
illustrations to demonstrate the high variability of regional Foresight in format and utility, but not
to offer ‘best-practice’ benchmarks or models.

But the Guide cannot substitute for the experience of actually getting involved in a Foresight
process,  understanding  how  it  works,  deriving  value  from  it,  and  ultimately  acting  on  the
resultant  knowledge  and  learning.  The  Guide  will  serve  its  purpose  if  it  encourages  more
regions to embark on such adventures and expedite the decisions and actions that need to be
taken along the way.

VIII

TTTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEE            OOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFF            CCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSS
FOREWORD............................................................................................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... V
INTRODUCTION - PRESENTING THE GUIDE ....................................................................................................... 1
Q1.1 Why has this "Practical Guide" to Regional Foresight been produced?....................................................... 1
Q1.2 Who is this Guide for? ................................................................................................................................... 1
Q1.3 What is the structure of the "Practical Guide"? ............................................................................................ 2

...... 3333
......................................
PART I – INTRODUCING REGIONAL FORESIGHT ................................
PART I – INTRODUCING REGIONAL FORESIGHT
......
......
................................
................................
PART I – INTRODUCING REGIONAL FORESIGHT
PART I – INTRODUCING REGIONAL FORESIGHT

CHAPTER 1 – BASIC CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................................. 3
Q1.1
 What is Foresight?........................................................................................................................................ 3
Q1.2 What is Regional Foresight? ......................................................................................................................... 4
Q1.3 When and for what purposes do I need to structure future-oriented thinking? ............................................. 6
Q1.4 Why is Foresight important for my region?................................................................................................. 10
Q1.5 What are the limitations of established planning approaches? ................................................................... 11
Q1.6 How can Foresight be used to do things better?.......................................................................................... 11
Q1.7 Why and when should the decision be taken to undertake Regional Foresight? ......................................... 12
CHAPTER 2 – TYPES OF FORESIGHT ................................................................................................................... 15
Q2.1 To which issues can Foresight be applied? ................................................................................................. 16
Q2.2 How can Foresight be used at Regional level?............................................................................................ 18
Q2.3 What are the main types of Foresight? ........................................................................................................ 19
Q2.4 What other main types of Foresight are there? ........................................................................................... 21
Q2.5
So, what do these different approaches to Foresight have in common? ...................................................... 22
Q2.6 How can formal methods be used in Foresight?.......................................................................................... 23
Q2.7 What  are the advantages and problems of using formal methods in Foresight? ........................................ 24
Q2.8 What is the difference between exploratory and normative methods?......................................................... 26
Q2.9 What weight should be put on quantitative as opposed to more qualitative methods?................................ 27
Are there other important variations in approach underlying the formal methods used in Foresight? .. 28
Q2.10
How can I go about identifying the Foresight approach appropriate for my situation? ......................... 29
Q2.11

.................................... 31313131
PART II – IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL FORESIGHT ................................
PART II – IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL FORESIGHT
................................
................................
PART II – IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL FORESIGHT
PART II – IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL FORESIGHT

CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................... 32
Q3.1 What challenges will my region have to face over the coming decades? .................................................... 34
Q3.2 What is the role of the different players located in the region in the face of these challenges? .................. 35
Q3.3 What will be the objectives of Foresight in my region?............................................................................... 35
Q3.4 How could I choose the focus of Foresight in my region?........................................................................... 36
Q3.5 How could Foresight be ‘positioned’ vis-à-vis existing policies and programmes? ................................... 37
Q3.6 What types of themes and/or sectors should my exercise cover?................................................................. 38
Q3.7 What would be the most suitable time horizon for my regional Foresight to adopt? .................................. 39
Q3.8 Who should be involved in my regional Foresight exercise?....................................................................... 40
Q3.9 How long will it take to conduct a Foresight exercise in my region?.......................................................... 41
How much will it cost?............................................................................................................................. 41
Q3.10
CHAPTER 4 – BUILDING MOMENTUM................................................................................................................ 43
Q4.1 How might the various players be identified? ............................................................................................. 43
Q4.2 What sorts of arguments should be employed to convince players to participate in regional Foresight?... 45
Q4.3 How should I promote the Foresight exercise more widely?....................................................................... 46
Q4.4 Who should sponsor a regional exercise, and for how long should such a commitment be made?............. 46
Q4.5 When should the various players be consulted and how will this be done?................................................. 47
CHAPTER 5 – STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION.................................................................................................. 48
Q5.1 How should my regional Foresight exercise be organised? ........................................................................ 48
Q5.2 Who are the actors and what are their tasks?.............................................................................................. 50
Q5.3 Does my blueprint include realistic milestones that will allow the exercise to be monitored?.................... 52
Q5.4 What sorts of inputs will the exercise require? ............................................................................................ 53
Q5.5 Which Foresight methods are best for my exercise?.................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 6 – OUTPUTS & OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................... 55
Q6.1 What outputs and deliverables should I expect from my exercise?.............................................................. 55
Q6.2 What are the likely challenges in relating outputs to potential users? ........................................................ 56
Q6.3 Why should regional Foresight activities be evaluated? ............................................................................. 57
Q6.4 How could I go about evaluating my Foresight activities? ......................................................................... 58

IX

Q6.5 What sorts of benefits should I be looking for from regional Foresight? .................................................... 59
Q6.6 How can I manage players’ expectations of regional Foresight? ............................................................... 60
Q6.7 How could Foresight become a continuous activity in my region? ............................................................. 60

....................... 63636363
PART III – REGIONAL FORESIGHT CASE DESCRIPTIONS .......................
PART III – REGIONAL FORESIGHT CASE DESCRIPTIONS
.......................
.......................
PART III – REGIONAL FORESIGHT CASE DESCRIPTIONS
PART III – REGIONAL FORESIGHT CASE DESCRIPTIONS

CHAPTER 7 – CATALONIA 2010 (SPAIN)............................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER 8 – UUSIMAA (FINLAND)........................................................................................................................ 67
CHAPTER 9 – WEST MIDLANDS (UK) .................................................................................................................. 75
CHAPTER 10 - LIMOUSIN 2017 (FRANCE).............................................................................................................. 79
CHAPTER 11 - PROVINCE OF LIEGE (BELGIUM).................................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER 12 - NORD-PAS DE CALAIS (FRANCE)................................................................................................. 85
CHAPTER 13 – BALTIC STRING (DENMARK, SWEDEN, GERMANY) ...................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 14- LOMBARDY (ITALY)........................................................................................................................ 93
CHAPTER 15 - NORTH-EAST ENGLAND (UK) .................................................................................................... 95

........................... 99999999
...........................................................
ANNEXE – FORESIGHT METHODS ................................
ANNEXE – FORESIGHT METHODS
...........................
...........................
................................
................................
ANNEXE – FORESIGHT METHODS
ANNEXE – FORESIGHT METHODS

Broad classes of Foresight methods ...................................................................................................................... 100
Foresight methods based on the use of expertise................................................................................................... 101
Quantitative Foresight Methods ............................................................................................................................ 111
Foresight methods for defining key actions and priorities .................................................................................... 116
FORESIGHT METHODS BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 120
RELEVANT WEBSITES.......................................................................................................................................... 121

X

INTRODUCTION - PRESENTING THE GUIDE

Q1.1 Why has this "Practical Guide" to Regional Foresight been produced?
Foresight,  as  it has emerged  in  recent  years,  has mostly  manifested  itself  in  the  form  of
large-scale  national  exercises.    However,  such  national  Foresight  tends  to  skate  over
many  issues  of  central  interest  to  regions.    Where  it  does  take  up  relevant  topics,  it  is
often  too  highly  aggregated  to  give  regions  enough  information  to  make  their  own
decisions.  Regional Foresight can fill this gap, going where national Foresight (if it exists)
has held back.  It can be justified in its own right as a means of effecting better-informed
and  future-proofed  regional  decisions  and  actions,  which  is  the  same  rationale  behind
national  Foresight.    The  particular  combinations  of  Foresight  tools  and  techniques  that
work  at  national  level  may  not  be  automatically  appropriate  at  regional  level.    We  can
learn  from  the  experience  of  national  Foresight,  and  from  the  pioneering  exercises  in
regional  Foresight,  but  we  need  to  be  sensitive  to  the  diverse  requirements  of  different
regions, and the ways in which national and regional experiences can diverge.  This Guide
seeks to crystallise  available  knowledge  about the  issues  confronting  regional  Foresight,
and the practical implications that follow from these.

Q1.2 Who is this Guide for?
This  “Practical  Guide”  has  been  produced  as  a  reference  point  for  those  interested  and
potentially involved in setting up a regionally-based Foresight activity.  We hope it helps to
lower  some  of  the  barriers  that  have  slowed  the  development  of  regional  Foresight  to
date.   We  have  aimed  to  make  the  Guide  appealing  and  useful  for  a  variety  of  different
readers.  Thus, it has been designed so that it can be used in several different ways.

Some  of  you  will  be  regional  experts  –  people  who  are  highly  knowledgeable  and
experienced  in  the  practicalities  of  local,  urban  and  regional  planning  and  development
activities.  You know in detail the types of issues your region and similar areas face, the
problems  of  regionally  based  stakeholders,  what  sorts of planning  processes  work  or  do
not  work  in  your  context,  as  well  as  the  wider  regional  problems  and  dilemmas.    If,
however,  you  do  not  have  much  knowledge  about  Foresight  and  what  it  can  offer,  the
Guide will introduce and explain, illustrate and exemplify, the concept for you (Chapter 1).

Others among you may already have encountered Foresight, and this might have been a
good  experience  -  or  a  bad  one  (e.g.  frustrated  attempts  to  translate  national  Foresight
down to regional level).  For you, Chapter 1 may still be relevant in that it makes the case
for  regional  Foresight  in  quite  explicit  terms,  whilst  acknowledging  its  limitations  and  the
circumstances in which it may not be a good idea.  But you may equally wish to go straight
to Chapter 2, which introduces some of the different 'types' of Foresight that make sense
at  regional  level.    This  chapter  draws  on  a  diverse  set  of  cases  and  examples,  some  of
which are much more 'hands on' than national Foresight.

If your interests are more immediately instrumental, and you wish to use the Guide  as a
reference  in  setting  up  a  regional  Foresight  activity,  you  can  go  straight  to  Part  II  -
Implementing  Regional  Foresight.    Here,  depending  on  what  stage  you  are  at  with  your
activity, or what your particular task or responsibility is, you may go directly to whichever

1

of Chapters 3 to 7 seems most relevant to you.  In any case - and the same applies to all
other readers and users of this Guide - cross-references are included throughout to refer
you  forwards  or  backwards  to  other  chapters  and  sections  dealing  with  complementary
aspects of given issues.

Those  of  you  that  have  particular  knowledge  and  expertise  in  Foresight  methods  -
Foresight experts - may choose a number of different entry points.  At the time of writing,
it  will  typically  be  the  case  that  most  of  your  Foresight  knowledge  relates  to  national
Foresight activities. In this case, the Guide will serve to spell out regional particularities of
-  where  the  priorities  and  the  dynamics  between  citizens,  stakeholders  and  decision-
makers  are  frequently  rather  different  from  those  encountered  at  the  national  level
because of the immediacy / proximity of the issues and problems.  You may well find that
these  particularities  imply  quite  different  approaches  to  Foresight  than  those  with  which
you are familiar.

Q1.3 What is the structure of the "Practical Guide"?
This Practical Guide has been structured as follows:

Chapter 1
Basic Concepts

Chapter 2
Types of Foresight

Chapter 3
Background & Scope

Chapter 4
Building Momentum

Chapter 5
Structure & Organisation

Chapter 6
Outputs & Outcomes

ANNEXE
Description of
Foresight Methods

PART I
Introducing Regional
Foresight

PART II
Implementing
Regional Foresight

PART III
Regional Foresight
Case Descriptions

2

PART I – Introducing Regional Foresight
PART I – Introducing Regional Foresight
PART I – Introducing Regional Foresight
PART I – Introducing Regional Foresight

CHAPTER 1 – BASIC CONCEPTS

Questions
Q1.1 : What is Foresight?

Q1.2 : What is Regional Foresight?

Q1.3 : When and for what purposes
do I need to structure future
oriented thinking?

Q1.4 : Why is Foresight important for

my region?

Q1.5 : What are the limitations of

established planning
approaches?

Q1.6 : How can Foresight be used to

do things better?

Q1.7 : Why and when should the

decision be taken to undertake
Regional Foresight?

Summary answer

Foresight is a systematic, participatory,
future intelligence gathering and medium-to-
long term vision building process aimed at
present-day decisions and mobilising joint
actions.
Regional Foresight is the implementation of
anticipation, participation, networking, vision
& action at a reduced territorial scale, where
proximity factors become determinant.
To systematise the input of anticipatory
intelligence to forward planning and policy.

Regional politics is on the rise but inclusive
policy institutions still underdeveloped and
uneven.
Most planning approaches do not handle
well long-term prospects and multiple
stakeholder views
Foresight breaks down barriers, articulates
long-term visions and interprets their
present-day implications.
Foresight can be proactive or reactive, or
arise from a special combination of
circumstances, but is only worthwhile when
it can be tied to action.

Q1.1  What is Foresight?

Foresight is a systematic, participatory, future intelligence gathering and medium-to-long-term
vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions.

In  recent  years,  the  term  'Foresight'  has  become  widely  used  to  describe  a  range  of
approaches to improving decision-making.  As the term implies, these approaches involve
thinking  about  emerging  opportunities  and  challenges,  trends  and  breaks  in  trends,  and
the  like.    But  the  aim  is  not  just  to  produce  more  insightful  “futures  studies”,  more
compelling  scenarios,  and  more  accurate  econometric  models.    Foresight  involves
bringing  together  key  agents  of  change  and  sources  of  knowledge,  in  order  to  develop
strategic  visions  and  anticipatory  intelligence.    Of  equal  importance,  Foresight  is  often
explicitly intended to establish networks of knowledgeable agents, who can respond better
to  policy  and  other  challenges.    This  is  made  possible  not  only  by  the  improved
anticipatory  intelligence  they  have  developed,  but  also  through  the  awareness  of  the

3

knowledge resources and strategic orientations of other members of the network.  The key
actors involved can include firms, governments, business sectors, voluntary organisations,
social  movements  and  technical  experts.    The  contexts  in  which  Foresight  can  be
employed  are  equally  wide-ranging:  much  work  to  date  has  focused  on  national
competitiveness  and  especially  the  prioritisation  and  development  of  strategic  goals  for
areas of research in science and technology.  But Foresight can and does also deal with
issues  like  demographic  change,  transport  issues,  environmental  problems  and  other
social,  political  and  cultural  factors.    Indeed,  one  of  the  main  lessons  of  Foresight
exercises to date is that science and technology issues are inextricably linked with a wider
range of social factors – and vice versa.  Social forces shape the development and use of
science and technology and the social implications associated with this.

Foresight involves five essential elements:
•  Structured  anticipation  and  projections  of 

technological developments and needs.

long-term  social,  economic  and

• 

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 programmes.  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  (however
stimulating these may be), 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 a utopia.  There has to be explicit recognition and explication

of the implications for present day decisions and actions.

Q1.2 What is Regional Foresight?

Regional Foresight is the implementation of anticipation, participation, networking, vision, and
action at a reduced territorial scale, where proximity factors become determinant.

Regional Foresight is the application of Foresight methods (involving some combination of
the  five  essential  elements  mentioned  in  Q1.1  above  -  anticipation,  participation,
networking, vision, action) to inform and orient decisions that are taken at sub national
level.  This may be a region of a federal state or otherwise, a metropolitan area, or some
other sub national aggregation or local system of actors. The important thing is for there to
be a minimal degree of local identity and political leverage available.

4

Box 1. Foresight - an approach arising from the convergence of three trends

Interest in Foresight from the mid-1990s on has been fuelled by three converging trends:

1. In  policy  development,  the  shift  from  an  elite-driven  /  top-down  to  a  broader,  more
participatory  approach.    In  part,  this  reflects  desires  for  greater  democratisation  and
legitimacy  in  political  processes.    Also,  it  builds  on  the  increasing  awareness  that  no
single body (especially not a government agency!) can know everything that needs to
be known in order to effect desired changes.  Knowledge is distributed widely, and as
the world grows more complex (through advances in science and technology, through
greater  social  differentiation,  etc.),  this  is  becoming  ever  more  apparent.    Decision-
makers  have  to  live  with  this,  and  develop  their  intelligence-gathering  methods
accordingly.

2. In  strategic  planning,  there  has  been  a  move  from  a  “rational”  approach  aimed  at
achieving  equilibrium  and  stability,  to  more  evolutionary  approaches.    This  is
conditioned  by  the  discovery  that  high  levels  of  uncertainty  are  the  norm,  not  the
exception.    Economic  progress  seems  to  be  more  a  matter  of  disruptive  innovations
than  of  the  pursuit  of  equilibrium.    Qualitative  changes  frequently  undermine  the
assumptions (built into most models, for example) that we can grasp the dynamics  of
social and economic life on the basis of quantitative changes within stable structures.
“Long-term planning” has been discredited.  But the long-term still has to be taken into
account in many decisions, and planners have sought better ways of so doing.

3. In futures studies, too, there have been several important developments.  One is a shift
from emphasis on predictive approaches to more exploratory studies, and from one-off
studies to more continual iterations of the process of envisioning future challenges and
opportunities.  Equally important is increasing recognition of the need to involve “users”
in the process of study, rather than to present them with a vision or set of visions of the
future  that  descends  from  “on  high”.  Part  of  the  reason  for  this  is  that  “futures
researchers” have found that such involvement is often essential for the messages of
their studies are absorbed into policymaking in a systematic – and ongoing – way.

Foresight  thus  occupies  the  space  in
futures  studies,  and
which  planning, 
policy development overlap.
It 
is  not  a  matter  of  academic  or
consultancy-based forecasts of the future
(although 
into
account).
It  is  not  planning,  it  does  not  define
it  displace  existing
policy,  nor  does 
decision-making and planning processes.
Rather, 
them  and
increases their effectiveness.

it  complements 

it  should 

these 

take 

1

Futures Studies

Foresight
Foresight

2

3

Strategic Planning

Policy Analysis

5

Regional  Foresight  is  a  means  for  those  who  share  a  common  territory,  to  control  their
future development  better.    For  Foresight  to be  worthwhile,  they  must  want  to  do  this,
and  be  empowered  with  at  least  some  of  the  means  for  effecting  it.    A  major
distinguishing feature of regions as compared to other territorial levels is the geographical
proximity of actors and the limited spatial range.  (Of course, some regions – especially in
more  outlying  areas  –  can  be  vast,  and  sparsely  populated;  and  regions  in  some  of  the
larger  countries  may  be  of  equivalent  size  and  population  to  the  whole  of  some  smaller
countries.    All  of  these  characteristics  are  relative  ones.)    Proximity  can  make  the
networking elements of Foresight easier to implement. In some cases it may appear that
all  key  players  are  already  familiar  with  each  other  and  the  resources  they  have  to
contribute  to  Foresight  –  although  so  far,  experience  in  small  countries,  as  well  as  in
regions  and  cities,  suggests  that  established  networks  can  be  valuably  infused  by  new
knowledge and new members.  However, some sorts of expertise and knowledge relevant
to regional issues may be hard to access from within the region, so the question of links to
parties outside the region is an important one for planning regional Foresight.

The  different  formats  /  types  of  regional  Foresight  that  can  be  envisaged  are  described
and  illustrated  in  Chapter  2.  There,  you  will  see  that  notwithstanding  the  jurisdictional
regional context, individual Foresight activities do not have to be all embracing.  It is quite
possible for Foresight activities to engage quite specific groups of actors (e.g. clusters of
SMEs, or certain segments of the population).  This will reflect the resources that can be
brought  to  bear,  and,  of  course,  the  objectives  of  the  activity,  the  features  of  the  issues
being tackled, etc.

Q1.3 When and for what purposes do I need to structure future-oriented thinking?

To enhance and systematise the inputs of anticipatory intelligence to forward planning and policy.

Future-oriented thinking is intrinsic to any forward planning or policy activity.  What Foresight
should accomplish is to enhance such thinking, by drawing on a broader range of knowledge
sources, and to systematise it and its links to decision making in structured, explicit ways.  In
regions, as at any territorial level, the desire to anticipate what will happen in the future covers
all  fields  from  the  socio-economic  (science  and  technology,  economy),  socio-political
(globalisation,  governance,  gender)  to  the  socio-cultural  (arts,  ethics,  philosophy,  religion,
ethnicity).  Foresight has tended to be more prevalent in those socio-economic fields where an
empirical  basis  of  indicators  and  data  can  be  built  on,  and  where  established  (or  at  least,
widely perceived) trends and countertrends are the basis of long-term investments.  However,
there  have  been  many  efforts  to  bring  Foresight  approaches  to  bear  on  other  sorts  of
problems, where it is more the difficulty of grasping long-term possibilities than a lack of need
to do so that has tended to limit efforts.

Box 2. What do we mean by 'region'?
For the purposes of this Guide, we consider regions to cover sub-national areas where the
essential  criterion  is  'geographical  proximity'  and  'limited  spatial  range'.  This  covers  rural
communities, town- and city-regions, historical regions, regions marked by specific economic
activities  or  cultural  identity,  and  political  regions  (autonomies,  counties,  provinces).    The
discussion  is  also  relevant  to  cross-border  regions,  though  there  are  particular  difficulties
associated with the division of political and administrative jurisdiction in such cases.

6

Different types of European 'regions' include

Large regions like the autonomous regions in Spain or Länder in Germany
Large regions with limited political autonomy as in France, UK, Italy
Large regions with a strong economic identity but transcending political and administrative
boundaries like the area around Aachen, Maastricht, Liege
Large city regions like London, Paris, Berlin
Rural / small town regions - Macedonia (EL), Alentejo (P), Savoie (F)
Regions with a strong historical / cultural identity - Wales, Basque Country, Flanders
Regions  with  a  distinctive  geographical  dimension  -  Alpine  regions  like  Tirol,  Island
regions like Corsica or The Canary Islands

The aim here is not to pin down precise definition(s) of 'region(s)' or create a general-purpose
typology of regions.  The objective is to highlight key factors that you can use to characterise
your region and its development problems, and to identify where, and in which circumstances,
specific  types  of  Foresight  actions  might  be  beneficial.  It  should  also  help  you  relate  your
regions to others so as to better judge how relevant their Foresight experiences may be to you.
Some important characteristics are:

Governance. This  refers to the  centres  of  competence for  public  and  private  intervention  in
regional affairs, and for support for regional economic, technological and social development.
Successful  regional  Foresight  requires  political  leverage  and  levels  of  governance  that  can
enable initiatives and proposals arising to be acted on.  Following Cooke et al. (1998)1, we can
distinguish  between  Grassroots  (local  co-ordination  of  actors,  highly  applied  orientation  of
technology-related  activities),  Network:  (high  co-ordination  between  networked  actors
including  firms,  funding  organisations  and  research  organisations)  and  Dirigiste  (high  co-
ordination  &  central management  of  key  assets  such  as  funding  and  research  competence)
types of governance.

Budget/ Finance competence. Regional Financial Competence - private and public – relates
to the degree of local control over major financial issues.  For example, are there local capital
markets,  local  credit-based  systems  involving  regional  administration  in  loan-guarantees,
regional public budgets, etc.?  Budgetary competence can take various forms.  For example,
regional  government  may  administer  decentralised  spending  (channelled  from  central
government) as in Italy, France, and Spain.  More autonomous spending competence, where
regions determine how to spend a centrally allocated block grant, is the case in Scotland and
Wales;  while  regional  taxation  authority  exists  in,  for  instance,  Scotland  (again)  and  the
Basque Country.

Infrastructure. Regions vary immensely in the control and influence they can exert over “hard
infrastructure”  (transport,  telecommunications)  and  also  “soft”  or  “knowledge  infrastructures”
(universities, research institutes, science parks and technology transfer centres).

1 See Regional Innovation Systems - The role of governances in a globalised world (UCL Press Ltd.) eds. Phil Cooke
et. al. 1998

7

                                                
Institutions and Social Capital.  This refers to the types and strength of "informal" institutions
within regions (as distinct from "formal" institutions- the “soft infrastructure” - together with laws,
regulations, etc.)  We can distinguish between2 Institutional capital - the capacity of the formal
institutions  in  a  region  to  concentrate  on  problem-solving,  capacity  to  act,  speed  in  decision
making,  organisational  flexibility  and  intelligence  and  inter-organisational  relations;  Cultural
capital - the heritage of traditions, values and beliefs, language, social relations, etc.; Symbolic
capital  -  the  potential  to  mobilise  energies  to  the  task  of  region  building,  generate  self-
references, build corporate territorial images; Psychosocial capital - of which a key element is
trust - trust in the community and in its development potential, and in enabling co-operation in
setting up groups and associations; Cognitive capital -  the collective know-how (as opposed to
individuals’    human  capital)  much  of  which  resides  in  the  knowledge  infrastructure
organisations (universities, research centres) and firms.  There are various ways in which such
social  capital  may  be  organised  –  at  extremes  we  could  point  to  co-operative  versus
competitive  cultures; 
learning;  associative
interactive  versus 
consensus versus polarised interest groups.

individualistic  modes  of 

Business postures. Firms in the regional economy are likely to have distinctive orientations
both towards each other and the outside world, as well as with producers and consumers in
the market place.  Regions vary in terms of the role of lead firms, the global versus local reach
of innovation activities, the balance between in-house versus public and co-operative research,
and  the  disposition  to  networking  and  clustering.    Cooke  et  al.  1998  again  identify  three
stereotypical regions, focusing particularly on innovation dynamics. The Localist type has few
if  any  large  indigenous  firms,  or  branches  of  externally  controlled  firms;  few  if  any  local
research organisations capable of combining with regional industrial clusters; few public R&D/
innovation  resources, though perhaps  some  small private  ones; and  there  will  often  be  high
“associationalism” among entrepreneurs and between them and regional policy-makers.   The
Interactive type features more of a balance between large  - indigenous or inward investing -
and  small  firms;  and  widespread  access  to  regional  R&D  resources  and  to  outside  sources
when required; there is also a balance between regional government promoting innovation and
large private firms with laboratories; and  high  “associationalism”  between-  local and  regional
networks,  fora  and  clubs.    The  Globalised  type  features  a  significant  presence  of  global
corporations,  often  supported  by  (supply-chain  dependent)  SMEs;  R&D  is  largely  internal  to
firms and private though there is some SME-oriented public innovation infrastructure; The local
“associationalism” is heavily influenced by the needs of larger firms.

2 F. Alburquerque, P Rodríguez, R. Ruiz & C. Román Learning to Innovate - Knowledge and Cultural Capital Regions,
Background paper for the OECD Seminar "The impact of cultural capital and knowledge upon social and economic
development", 30 Sept - 1 Oct 1999 Malaga, Spain (Institute for Regional Development, University of Seville, 1999)

8

                                                
The following table shows a tentative grouping of some exemplary European regions in terms
of two of the factors outlined above:

Governance of firm innovation support

Grassroots

Network

Dirigiste

Lombardy industrial
districts
Andalusia
Flevoland
Castilla y Leon

Lombardy
Casarano

Flevoland
South-East Bari
Neubrandenberg

Western Trans-Danubia
North & Central Macedonia

Stuttgart
Uusimaa
Valencia
Limburg

Overijssel

Lombardy-Milan
Yorkshire & Humber
Catania

North-East England
Wales
Yorkshire & Humber

Greater Dublin
Western Trans-Danubia

e
r
u
t
s
o
p
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

t
s
i
l
a
c
o
L

e
v
i
t
c
a
r
e
t
n

I

d
e
s
i
l
a
b
o
G

l

The decision to use Foresight approaches when confronting such issues is one that cannot be
taken  lightly,  and  later  sections  of  this  Guide  will  provide  further  orientation  as  to  when  and
how  this  may  be  taken  further.    However,  we  should  remember  that,  as  mentioned  earlier,
even  the  more  narrowly  science  and  technology-focused  Foresight  activities  have  found  it
necessary  to take  broader economic,  social and  cultural  factors  into  account.    One  problem
that then arises is that the activities were usually designed without building in expertise in such
issues. The  situation faced then  is  either one  where experts try  to  apply  their  intelligence  to
fields  that  are  far  removed  from  their  own  specialisation,  or  one  in  which  there  has  been  a
hasty  effort  to  recruit  appropriate  expertise  at  a  late  stage,  tacking  it  onto  an  existing  set  of
activities  and  processes.    Neither  option  is  very  satisfactory.    The  lesson  is  that  it  will  be
important to consider the relevance of such broader issues, and the ways in which these may
be effectively handled in Foresight, at the beginning of the activity.

9

 
Orientations of Foresight and related “futures “ activities and future-
oriented thinking

Field

Use of Foresight

Science & technology
Education
Business &
competitiveness
Services
Crime
Employment
Demographics

Governance
Globalisation
Gender & equality
Social Exclusion

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
e
-
o
i
c
o
S

l
a
c
i
t
i
l

o
p
-
o
i
c
o
S

Ethics & morality
Race & ethnicity
Philosophy & religion

l Arts
a
r
u
t
l
u
c
-
o
i
c
o
S

Conflicts/
Wars
Disasters (man-made/
natural)
Migration

s
d
r
a
c
d

l
i

W

National and regional
activities are most
common in these fields

Less prevalent but
increasingly the focus of
exercises

Rare - not unknown, but
generally undertaken by
independent bodies
rather than national or
regional government or
firms.

Very difficult to handle -
sometimes used to
generate wild card
scenarios in more
common Foresights.
Military, defence and
emergency planning
authorities have
sometimes done so.

Availability of
indicators &  statistical
data

Good - anticipatory
intelligence can combine
reasonable volumes of
both quantitative and
qualitative information.

Careful handling of
qualitative conjectures is
necessary; politicised
debates may rage;
expertise may be hard to
assess and/or extremely
partial.

As above, if anything more
so.

As above, though for
internal purposes some
authorities have developed
elaborate and
sophisticated methods and
analyses.  A problem here
is that there may be high
confidentiality, and
considerable selectivity in
what is made available to
outsiders.

Q1.4 Why is Foresight important for my region?

Regional politics is on the rise - but inclusive policy institutions still underdeveloped and uneven.

It  is  widely  argued  that  the  nation-state  is  not  best  equipped  for  dealing  with  many  of  the
challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.  In many countries there has been a
high  level  of  disenchantment  with  national  politics,  and  a  sense  of  alienation  from  the  core
metropolitan areas is expressed in more remote regions.  This has often been reflected by a
growth in regional sentiment.  Such sentiment also, perhaps, reflects our era of rapid change
and globalisation – forcing people to consider what elements of their historical traditions and
culture  they  wish  to  retain.    Regional  disparities  remain  important  in  many  countries,  too  –

10

 
indeed, they are sometimes growing.  Finally, many economists and geographers argue that it
is at the regional level that we find innovative clusters and growth poles – that the national level
is ineffective when it comes to stimulating new regional poles of activity.  National innovation
and growth policies often seem to reinforce existing uneven development.

For  these,  and  other  reasons,  regional  economic  and development policymaking  have been
rising in importance in recent years.  However, despite several important initiatives, the level of
development  of  regional-based  institutions  and  processes  for  informing  decisions  and
embedding and enhancing policy processes remains very uneven. Foresight is by no means
the complete answer to such problems, but it can contribute to their eventual resolution.

Q1.5 What are the limitations of established planning approaches?

Most planning approaches do not handle long-term prospects and multiple stakeholder views well.

Foresight is different from most planning activities (see Box 3), even those that are strategic
and long-term focused.  Part of the difference lays in the principal characteristic of Foresight,
which  is  based  on  participative  methods.    Foresight  encourages  the  active  involvement  of
stakeholders  with  the  aim  of  sharing  knowledge  (and  knowledge  of  who  can  supply
knowledge!), gradually to build a vision of possible futures for the region.

Hopefully it will be possible to establish some consensus around this vision.  But even where
such  consensus  is  lacking,  the  Foresight  process  should  contribute  valuable  learning  about
possibilities and the positions of key stakeholders.  Most current policy-making practices, even
when  based  on  participation  of  different  actors  in  the  region  are  in  contrast  short  term  and
limited in scope.  This is not to say that they are wrong – decision-makers do need to respond
to immediate contingencies - but they are limited and insufficient.  In addition, being often led
by funding opportunities, they may be less capable of building an approach that is derived from
the region’s needs.

Q1.6 How can Foresight be used to do things better?

Foresight breaks down barriers, articulates long-term visions and interprets their present-day
implications

Regions are arguably well-suited to the participative and vision-building Foresight approaches.
The stronger links between regionally-based actors, the immediacy and sensitivity of people to
changes in their region, and a heightened level of awareness and commitment to community,
should all render such approaches valuable in regional settings.

However,  Foresight  does  demand  orientations  to  policymaking  that  may  be  unfamiliar  to
regional  actors,  and  may  prove  difficult  to  accommodate  in  emerging  regional  institutions.
Regional actors are liable to be entrenched in a compartmentalised division of responsibilities,
with “turf wars” about who is responsible for this or that issue.  Foresight necessarily seeks to
break down such barriers.  This may be resisted, even by new incumbents of policy positions.

11

Box 3. Foresight - enhancing & extending traditional policy and strategy planning
Planning:  A  (supposedly)  rational  process  of  decision-making  and  control  focused  on  the
allocation  of  resources  with  respect  to  fixed  objectives  by  systematic  and  transparent
procedure. Actual practice yields closer or further approximations to this idealised description.
Strategic  Planning:  A  process  of  managing  organisational  change  focused  on  the
development of an organisation and its human resources, structures and systems.
Forward  Planning:  The  process  of  exploring  the  future,  usually  with  the  help  of  probable
scenarios, by including analysis of the socio-economic impact of firm decisions and objectives,
and defining key elements likely to give rise to sudden deviations or changes in trends. Unlike
planning,  this  approach  is  directed  much  more  towards  strategic  questions  than  towards
operational problems.
Foresight: has the same orientation as forward planning, and also likely to employ scenario
analysis  and  other  exploratory  methods  to  produce  insights  into  the  challenges  implied  by
prospective  technological,  economic  and  societal  developments.  But  it  is  also  highly
participative  seeking  to  stimulate  networking  among  key  actors  (i.e.,  policy-makers,
researchers,  enterprises,  other  stakeholders)  and  to  translate  prospective  analysis  into
implications for present-day decisions - i.e. with more-or-less explicit feedback into “planning”
and “strategic planning”.
Source: Adapted from: EURYDICE Report  “Forward Planning in Education in the Member States of the EU” 1999
and the FOREN Report “Reconciling Foresight with Policy Making at Regional Level” December 2000
http://foren.jrc.es

Q1.7 Why and when should the decision be taken to undertake Regional

Foresight?

Foresight can be proactive or reactive, or arise from a special combination of circumstances, but is
only worthwhile when it can be tied to action.

Regions can have very different reasons to undertake a Foresight exercise.  These will depend
upon their characteristics, priorities and objectives (see Part II - Chapter 3).  The motivations
may be mainly reactive:
•  A national agency has requested that you contribute your region’s views into a national

exercise, or

•  You  may  have  learned  of  the  results  of  a  national  exercise,  and  be  concerned  as  to

what their implications are for your region.

At the other extreme, much more proactive reasons may be involved:
• 

In the absence of a national Foresight approach, you want to make use of this set of
policy tools.

•  You may be concerned about the future prospects for a particularly important sector of
your economy, and wish to gain insight on the challenges and opportunities it may face
in the future.

•  You  may  be  interested  in  building  a  future  vision  for  your  region,  because  you  are
dissatisfied  with  the  perspectives  on  regional  development  that  emerge  from  other
levels of government.

12

The  particular  style  of  Foresight  (Chapter  2)  you  adopt  will  be  shaped  by  the  objectives
(Chapter 3) you are pursuing, and this “Practical Guide” is intended to help your choices here.

Independently of these considerations, the decisive factor in launching a Foresight exercise -
especially  one  involving  a  range  of  societal  and  economic  sectors  -  can  also  stem  from  a
fortuitous  or  special  combination  of  circumstances  that  spell  either  a  major  threat  or  major
opportunity for the stakeholders concerned.  Examples of these could include:
•  An external (i.e. national government) threat to reconfigure regional / local government

institutions and reallocate competencies.

•  A  threat  to  the  local  economy,  for  example,  the  decline  of  a  local  industry,  the

withdrawal of a major inward investor, etc.

•  For less-favoured regions, the need to prepare for the major impact of EU enlargement

on structural and cohesion funds.

•  For  rapidly  developing  regions,  there  may  be  a  desire  to  avoid  falling  victim  to  the
problems that come with rapid success and growth, such as infrastructural bottlenecks,
skill shortages, wealth imbalances, etc.

Foresight  should  not  be  used  when  there  is  no  possibility  to  act  on  the  results  that  it  will
generate.  A minimal degree of political, economic or cultural leverage is required (c.f. Q1.2) –
even  if  it  is  recognised  that  the  Foresight  activity  is  likely  to  have  to  battle  with  entrenched
opposition to achieve any significant impacts.

Neither  should  "wishful  thinking"  nor  "me  too"  regional  Foresight  be  embarked  upon.    The
simple  imitation  of  issues  and  methods  (not  to  mention  the  uncritical  “borrowing”  of  results)
from  elsewhere  is  liable  to  be  counterproductive.    For  example,  a  predominantly  rural
agricultural region cannot "Foresight" its way to becoming a high-tech nanotechnology or even
biotechnology hub.  Neither can a Foresight activity that has been designed for a region which
is accustomed to wide public participatory debates necessarily  be  (immediately)  deployed  in
one which public opinion is handled through more traditional routes - surveys, press, political
party representation, etc. (More on this in Part II).

If  there  is  no  possibility  for  careful  preparation  and  tailoring  of  regional  Foresight  to  specific
regional characteristics, then it probably should not be implemented.  Political discretion also
needs to be exercised in cases where conflict is inevitable between certain sectors on highly
contentious issues.  Where there is a strong probability that the conflict-resolution powers of
Foresight methods will be outweighed by the chances that conflict is exacerbated, then again,
Foresight should not be undertaken, or at least taken up in a very cautious way.  An example
might  be  a  case  where  a  regional  Foresight  exercise  might  address  long-term  water
management  in  a  context  of  scarcity  and  competition  between  industry,  agriculture  and
households – or different sub-regions. Stalemate could easily result, and perhaps stem from
the inability to address completely the supply-side of the problem, for instance if the region in
question shares its water basin with other territories.

13

14

CHAPTER 2 – TYPES OF FORESIGHT

This  section  of  the  ‘Practical  Guide’  goes  further  into  the  question  of  just  what  Foresight  is.
Later  sections  will  concentrate on  how  to  set about  doing  it.   For now,  we  will  focus  on  the
defining characteristics, and the main varieties, of Foresight.

There  is  a  wide  range  of  activities  that  can  constitute  Foresight.  Being  aware  of  this  should
help you to decide just what types of Foresight you may wish to undertake or  participate  in.
However, it is important to be aware, too, that many activities are being marketed as Foresight
nowadays.    It  is  an  appealing  term,  and  all  sorts  of  activities  are  seeking  to  re-brand
themselves and gain its status.  Not all of these really meet the core requirements of Foresight
–  for  example,  some  of  these  are  simply  conventional  forecasting  studies  carried  out  by
consultancies using expert teams.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with such studies, and
indeed  they  can  be  very  useful  inputs  to  Foresight.    But  to  suggest  that  such  studies  are
sufficient to constitute Foresight in a region is very misleading.

Questions
Q2.1 : To which issues can Foresight

be applied?

Q2.2 : How can Foresight be used at

Regional level?

Q2.3 : What are the main types of

Foresight?

Q2.4 : What other main types of

Foresight are there?

Q2.5 : So, what do these different

approaches to Foresight have
in common?

Q2.6 : How can formal methods be
used in Foresight?

Q2.7 : What are the advantages and

problems of using formal
methods in Foresight?

Q2.8 : What is the difference between

exploratory and normative

Summary answer
Foresight can be applied to a huge range of
topics, and activities may concern
embedding Foresight capabilities as well as
working through a single large programme.
Foresight can be used to inform
policymaking, build networks, and enhance
local capabilities for tackling long-term
issues.
A first distinction is between Foresight
activities that are more or less bottom-up or
top-down.
A second distinction is between Foresight
activities that are more or less product- or
process-oriented.
Foresight features a long-term orientation to
examining a wide range of factors, drawing
on widely-distributed knowledge, in an
institutionalised way, and using formal
techniques
While the results of formal methods can be
fed into Foresight as “forecasts”, it is more
valuable to relate the design and
implementation of such methods to the
interactive Foresight process.
Formal methods provide results which can
communicate key Foresight conclusions,
check the consistency of different aspects of
the vision, help identify where more
knowledge is needed, and legitimise the
exercise.
Exploratory methods begin from the
present, and see where events and trends

15

methods?

Q2.9 : What weight should be put on

quantitative as opposed to
more qualitative methods?

Q2.10 : Are there other important

variations in approach
underlying the formal methods
used in Foresight?

Q2.11 :How can I go about identifying
the Foresight approach
appropriate for my situation?

might take us; normative methods begin
from the future, asking what trends and
events would take us there.
Foresight usually draws on both
approaches, which provide distinctive inputs
into grasping the problems we are dealing
with: quantitative data are often given a
great deal of weight, but they should not be
allowed to dominate.
The use of expert opinion may be
contrasted with analyses based more on
following through assumptions – again the
approach used is determined by the
problem and context confronted.
The appropriate balance of approaches will
be influenced by the problems at stake, the
resources to hand – and the political
context.

Q2.1 To which issues can Foresight be applied?

While most often applied to hard” scientific and industrial topics, Foresight can be applied more
widely – and the aim may be more that of developing general Foresight capabilities than of working
through a single large programme.

Foresight can be applied to any topic where significant changes are anticipated – or desired –
in  the  long-term.  Chapter  1  stresses  that  there  needs  to  be  a  link  to  practical  action  for
Foresight to be more than just forecasting.  The sorts of Foresight an organisation undertakes
will reflect its interests, capabilities and competencies.  The focus on Science and Technology
(S&T)  developments  that  is  common  in  national  Foresight  may  be  less  relevant  to  a  region
with little in the way of R&D allocations, for example.  Such a region will have little need for
Foresight to inform research prioritisation.  Of course, some S&T issues in Foresight may still
be relevant to the region.  Even if it is not so concerned with technological frontiers, it is quite
likely  to  want  to  facilitate  more  rapid  uptake  of  available  technologies  in  the  region,  for
example.  It may seek to enhance links between Universities and other research performers,
on  the  one  hand,  and  local  business  and  welfare  institutions  on  the  other;  it  may  seek  to
forewarn local employers of challenges to the sorts of products they develop or processes that
they use; and so on.

The  wave  of  interest  in  Foresight that began  in the  mid-1990s  has  so  far  mainly  resulted  in
studies and programmes that are:
•  Commissioned by and focused on the nation-state
•  Largely  focused  on  bringing  together  knowledge  about  scientific  and  technological
(S&T) developments on the one hand, and  social  needs  and market  opportunities on
the other.

•  Aimed  at  networking  stakeholders  in  the  context  of  a  major  Foresight  Programme
oriented  (at  least  initially)  towards  producing  particular  reports,  informing  particular
decisions, or building particular networks.

But the basic principles, and indeed many of the specific methods and tools, of Foresight can
also be used in other ways and by other actors.  Indeed:

16

•  Many large commercial organisations, and a number of regional authorities  - and also
voluntary  associations  and  charities  -  have  undertaken  (or  commissioned)  Foresight
programmes  and  exercises.    (Sometimes  these  have  been  described  through  other
terms such as “futures studies”, "strategic visions" or “prospective”.)

•  Areas  of  focus  also  range  widely.    Many  formal  techniques  have  their  origins  in
defence  planning;  military  agencies  still  use  such  tools  to  examine  emerging  threats,
antagonists,  emergencies,  and  strategies.    Infrastructural  decisions  –  building  and
siting of dams, power stations and transport networks, for example – are also typically
informed by appraisal of long-term developments. Currently, climate change issues are
being  examined  closely  by  insurers,  land-use  planners,  and  others,  often  using
scenario analysis and related approaches.  Some work is conducted very narrowly, by
extrapolation or modelling of simple demographic or economic trends, for example. But
many  agencies  do  undertake more  substantive  and  wide-ranging  Foresight,  involving
much more participation and network building.

•  National  Foresight  exercises  have  sometimes  been  impelled  to  expand  their  focus.
Organisers  of  national  exercises  often  seek  to  disseminate  their  results  to  regions,
cities,  etc.  They  have  also  sometimes  found  it  necessary  to  involve  these  actors  in
ongoing  Foresight.    This  may  have  been  to  gain  access  to  knowledge  and  political
leverage from these actors, or to help institutionalise and activate a “Foresight culture”
on  a  broader  base.    A  focus  on  S&T  has  often  been  found  insufficient  for  such
deepening  of  Foresight:  issues  concerned  with  entrepreneurship,  regional  disparity,
demographic  change,  environmental  problems,  and  public  acceptance  of  innovations
have  surfaced  repeatedly  in  Foresight  –  a  feature  common  to  many  early  national
exercises  (e.g.  in  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  the  UK  –  even  in  France’s  “key
technologies” exercise).

•  Despite  the  predominance  of  major  Foresight  programmes,  there  are  numerous
smaller  exercises.    Furthermore,  some  approaches  to  building  “Foresight  culture”  do
not depend upon a central programme aimed at informing particular decisions.  Some
approaches,  for  example,  are  much  more  oriented  toward  generating  the  skills  and
capabilities  for  a  wide  range  of  regional  actors  to  define  and  embark  upon  their  own
Foresight activities.  An example of this is a “Foresight embedding” (Foresight for Real)
exercise  being  proposed  for  North-East  England  by  one  of  the  participants  in  the
FOREN network.

Finally, let us return to the question of what areas to focus upon.  It is usually going to be of
considerable  benefit  to  situate  Foresight  activities  within  a  wide-ranging  appraisal  of  future
developments.    It  may  well  be  that  the  key  players  in  Foresight  are  mainly  interested  in
particular areas of industry, technology, social welfare, or some other specific topic.  But their
understanding of long-term issues is bound to require some analysis of the background within
which  these  areas  are  developing,  and  the  factors  that  may  impinge  upon  their  areas  of
interest from adjacent and even from more remote areas.

Having said that, it is quite logical for Foresight activities to focus on those areas that are of
most concern within the region, and where there is most scope for regional actors to influence
the course of development.  This will often involve areas of concern other than the S&T field
that was central to most early national Foresight programmes – and may accordingly require
very different inputs of expertise to achieve useful results.

17

Q2.2 How can Foresight be used at Regional level?

Foresight can be used to inform policymaking, build networks, and enhance local capabilities for
tackling long-term issues.

In Part III, a number of regional Foresight activities are described. Reading through these you
will  probably  be  struck  by  how  very  different  they  are.    They  vary  in  terms  of  the  resources
committed to them and their scale of activity, in the topics focused on and the methods used.
Thinking about what topic to address and what types of method to use are addressed later in
this section.  Here we want simply to outline some of the main reasons for undertaking regional
Foresight  exercises  –  and  some  of  the  things  they  cannot  do.    We  will  talk  about
“policymaking” below, but the general arguments will apply to other sorts of decision making –
for example the strategies of firms and voluntary associations.

Three main rationales for Foresight activities are as follows:
•  To  inform  policymaking,  so  that  decisions  taken  by  key  actors  in  the  commissioning
body are more aware of longer-term developments and how these are liable to interact
with current policy decisions.  Often a Foresight exercise will be stimulated by the need
to  take  a  particular  decision,  admittedly.    But  the  knowledge  developed,  and  the
Foresight capabilities that have  hopefully  been embedded  in  the organisation,  should
have a wider significance.

•  To help build networks among the people centrally involved with shaping the future of
a  particular  topic.    They  will  be  brought  together  to  work  on  their  visions  and
assessments  of  the  future.    The  purpose  of  this  is  to  help  them  become  better  able
collectively  to  understand  the  challenges  and  opportunities  that  they  are  liable  to
confront, and the strategies and objectives that others might pursue.

•  To  develop  capabilities  widely  throughout  a  region,  to  facilitate  the  development  of  a
“Foresight culture”.  The aim of this is for people of various kinds to be able to define
and embark upon their own Foresight activities, to forge their own Foresight networks.

In practice a mixture of these three reasons is often in play.  The third rationale is probably the
one that has been slowest to be recognised as a practical goal, but is often very relevant at
regional  level.    In  practice,  too,  there  may  be  other  goals  that  stimulate  regional  interest  in
Foresight.  It may be kicked off by a national exercise, or an effort to make the region’s voice
heard within the context of such an exercise.

What Foresight cannot do is to solve all of the social, economic or political problems that beset
a  region.    Foresight  can  generate  visions.  Ideally  large  elements  of  these  will  be  shared
visions, and ones that are well-founded on knowledge of the relevant developments in social
or technological affairs.  This ideal is not as utopian as it may at first seem; some national and
regional  exercises  have  succeeded  in  achieving  quite  widespread  consensus  behind  their
results.  But Foresight is not a magic wand with which to impose consensus where there are
profound disagreements.  While it may help find areas of agreement shared between opposing
factions, it may also become mired in disputes between entrenched antagonists.  Such risks
are greater where the focus of Foresight is on topics that divide these groups – which will often
involve issues of social welfare, governance, and the like.

Furthermore, Foresight should not be seen as a “quick fix”.  A Foresight exercise may provide
the information (e.g. a priority list) needed for a particular policy to be implemented.  But the
sorts of longer-term analyses that Foresight involves, and the new networks and capabilities

18

that  it  can  forge  cannot  be  expected  to  achieve  results  overnight.    Often  the  processes  of
interacting  around  ideas  of  what  opportunities  might  be  seized,  how  particular  challenges
might be confronted, etc. will take a long time to result in widely-accepted notions of the way
forward.  The problems we wish to address have often matured over many years – effecting
significant change is often going to require long preparation, and considerable groundwork to
prepare people for the change.

A regional Foresight activity will, of course, exist in the context of activities undertaken in other
regions and quite possibly at the national level.  It will almost always be desirable to make use
of Foresight outputs and experiences from such other sources.  The exceptions may be where
there is a radically different Foresight philosophy being adopted elsewhere, or where there is a
strong  need  to  differentiate  regional  activities  –  for  instance  where  a  national  programme  is
seen as not paying sufficient attention to regional issues.  There may be sensitivities involved
where the networks established in different exercises overlap, too.

Beyond  using  outputs  from  other  exercises  (and  supplying  outputs  to  them,  as  well),  other
types of link may be fostered.  Liaison with other exercises may be a means of learning good
practice, practical problems of using specific approaches in specific contexts, scope for pooling
resources, and so on.  To date there has been limited experience of active regional exercises
being strongly linked to active national ones.  Unless the region is in a high degree of conflict
with  national  authorities,  this  can  nevertheless  often  be  an  ideal  to  aim  for.    Finally,
international organisations can play a role in collating information about Foresight and fostering
its  use  in  particular  settings.  FOREN  itself  derives  from  the  European  Union’s  interest  in
supporting regional Foresight, of course, as do several other recent projects.  Such activities
may be sources of information and practical help for new Foresight activities.

Q2.3 What are the main types of Foresight?

First, Foresight activities can be more or less bottom-up or top-down.

Foresight  activities  vary  in  the  extent  to  which  they  are  “top  down”  or  “bottom  up”,  and
emphasise  the  products  or  the  processes  of  interaction  and  networking.    Before  turning  to
Foresight proper, it is worth noting that the popularity of the term “Foresight” has meant that it
has often been applied to rather more traditional and less participative forms of futures study:
This  sort  of  heavily  top-down,  product-oriented  activity,  which  is  at  best  really  only  quasi-
Foresight, comes in two main varieties.
•  The  Select  Panel.    Here,  a  small  expert  panel  weighs  available  evidence  and
generates a vision of the future, a list of priorities, etc.  The panel may commission new
studies or mainly draw on its internal expertise. The renown of the experts will largely
determine the impact of the work; often it may be dismissed as the product of special
interests – other experts, it will be alleged, could be found to give other views.  (Thus
the  dismissive  acronym  BOGSAT  is  sometimes  applied  to  this  approach  –  it’s  just  a
“Bunch Of Guys Sat Around a Table”.)

•  The  Model.    This  involves  using  a  technically  sophisticated  procedure  –  simulation
modelling  is  an  outstanding  example.    But  since  such  models  are  inadequately
developed for dealing with many topics.  As a result, there will also be a rather looser
way of combining together different trends and issues, extending the study beyond the
narrow parameters that can be properly addressed by the model.  The vision(s) of the
future that result from this will come with the legitimacy accorded to the techniques and
fields  of  study  employed.    Often  techniques  such  as  computer  simulation  are  treated

19

with awe.  But there is increasing awareness that they depend on assumptions about
the  object  of  study  that  may  be  contested.    (The  phrase  “Garbage  in,  Garbage  Out”
has been used in critique of particular modelling exercises, to indicate that their results
are only as good as the underpinning assumptions and data.) Such models’ usefulness
for  addressing  long-term  developments  is  also  limited  by  their  being  better  equipped
for  dealing  with  quantitative  trends  within  unchanging  structures  than  with  qualitative
developments and structural discontinuities.

These approaches may not be full-fledged Foresight, but they can be useful aids to planning,
decision-making, and thinking about the future – and they can be helpful inputs to exercises
that  are  more  appropriately  termed  Foresight.    (Forecasting  studies  can,  of  course,  equally
draw on reports and data produced in the course of Foresight activities!).

Foresight activities vary considerably in how top-down or bottom-up they are.  At the extremes:
•  Some exercises are top-down and place little stress on interaction.  To be Foresight
proper,  inputs  will  have  been  sought  from  a  wide  range  of  sources,  but  these  are
mainly processed by a small expert group.   The group should have been constituted
to  include  a  range  of  interests  –  not  just  futures  and  domain  specialists  –  and  in
particular  to  link  together  researchers  and  practitioners  (active  businesses  and/or
policymakers) in the field.  The group will seek inputs of evidence and views from the
wider  community.    Often  this  will  involve  highly  formal  methods  such  as  Delphi
questionnaires,  but  also  public  seminars  and  the  like  can  be  used.    This  material
informs  the  results  generated  by  the  expert  group,  and  these  consultations  are  also
part  of  spreading  the  Foresight  “message”.    Often,  too,  there  will  be  several  expert
groups  working  in  parallel  on  different  topic  areas,  with  another  group  charged  with
drawing together their conclusions.  This resembles a more open version of the Select
Panel approach described above.  It differs from such narrower forecasting exercises
in terms of its scope, its openness to inputs from a wide range of contributors, and its
linkages to decision-making.

•  Some exercises are more bottom-up and place high stress on interaction.  They solicit
inputs about how to conduct the Foresight activity.  They may ask for views about its
design,  about  the  content  (e.g.  the  range  of  topics  to  cover),  about  how  to  address
messages to what groups, etc.  A wide range of methods can be used to ensure that
these  are  forthcoming  –  discussions  on  websites,  meetings  in  localities  and  with
special  interest  groups,  presentations  at  a  wide  range  of  fora.    A  need  to  pull  such
diverse  contributions  together  is  usually  recognised,  of  course,  and  some  panels  or
teams  will  be  entrusted  with  the  task  of  preparing  syntheses  and  action  plans.    But
there  is  ample  opportunity  for  other  participants  to  reach  their  own  conclusions,
appropriate to their own organisational requirements and opportunities.

These extremes are manifest in several exercises.  But also we find many Foresight exercises
that fall between them, with a mix of top-down and bottom-up elements.

Bottom-up approaches have considerable advantages – they allow for wider gathering of
intelligence,  increased  legitimacy  for  the  activity,  and  are  liable  to  yield  more  process
benefits (see below).  However, they take time and careful planning to organise, meaning
that they cannot be undertaken lightly or in haste.  Furthermore, they are inevitably “hard
to control” – running the risk of generating or airing views and ideas that are politicised or
potentially subversive of the Foresight exercise itself, its design, or its potential impact on

20

decision-makers.  This is of course an “inconvenient” feature of democracy in general, and
bottom-up Foresight can be considered to be an attempt to help democratise more areas
of policymaking.

The extent to which bottom-up approaches are employed, and the ways in which they are
implemented,  requires  careful  planning.    Problems  encountered  elsewhere  need  to  be
considered seriously.  Nevertheless, it will be rare circumstances – e.g. the need to obtain
insights  to  feed  extremely  rapidly  into  urgent  policy  decisions,  and  perhaps  those  rare
circumstances  where  high  confidentiality  is  required  (e.g.  some  sorts  of  emergency
planning) – that demand exclusively top-down approaches.  And even here, we should be
aware that some sorts of policymakers reflexively prefer to opt for more closed, rapid and
“efficient”  approaches,  remaining  unconvinced  of  the  network  and  knowledge  benefits  of
wider participation.  We can choose to accede to these preferences – or we can challenge
them.

Q2.4 What other main types of Foresight are there?

A second distinction is between Foresight activities that are more or less product- or process-
oriented.

The  focus  on  products  or  processes  is  related  to  the  top-down/bottom-up  distinction.    In
practice Foresight activities vary in the extent to which they emphasise:
•  Formal Products.  These include reports, videos, lists of priorities and action  points,
and the like.  Foresight exercises vary not only in the emphasis given to these, but also
in  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  the  products  are  on  the  one  hand,  more  visionary,
stimulating,  challenging  ones  (e.g.  scenarios),  or  on  the  other,  more  practical,
concrete,  action-oriented  ones  (e.g.  checklists).    Likewise,  they  vary  in  how  far  such
formal products are aimed at or disseminated to wide audiences, or destined simply to
be inputs for use by a narrow circle of decision-makers.

•  Learning Processes: these include network building and the embedding of Foresight
culture  in  organisations  and  constituencies  engaged  in  the  process.      The  “product”
here  is  less  an  action  plan  than  a  preparedness  for  action.    The  goal  is  achieving
increased receptivity to signals of change, and an enhanced understanding of how and
where  to  access  critical  resources.    Most  often,  the  activities  around  which  such
learning  is  accomplished  involve  a  Foresight  programme  -  some  effort  to  create
products, be they consensus visions of the future, or Foresight reports or priority lists.
Such  activities  have  proved  to  be  useful  means  for  establishing  or  reinforcing
networks,  as  different  types  of  actor  are  encouraged  to  share  their  knowledge  and
strategic thinking.

•  But  some  Foresight  activities  place  even  more  stress  on  developing  capabilities.
Such  activities  are  more  oriented  toward  enabling  participants  to  develop  their  own
Foresight procedures for their own organisations, to form their own networks, etc.  The
emphasis will here lie more on training them in the sorts of method that are used, and
providing  awareness  about  the  sorts  of  practical  issues  that  this  ‘Practical  Guide’
discusses.

Of course, a mixture of product and process orientations is often pursued in practice, and they
can be mutually reinforcing.  Capabilities, too, should always be developed as a  by-product,

21

but  it  is  possible  to  build  these  in  an  explicit  objective  of  the  activity,  and  design  specific
activities with this in mind.

The specific circumstances determine what mix is going to be most feasible to implement, and
which  may  be  most  effective  in  terms  of  meeting  its  objectives.    Many  national  Foresight
programmes  have  been  predominantly  product-driven.    The  reports  and  other  outputs  from
such  programmes  are  usually  fairly  easy  to  find,  which  has  perhaps  contributed  to  a
misapprehension  that  these  form  the  Foresight  approach.    But  much  more  process-based
exercises also exist.  While these can be much harder for outsiders to access and assess, they
may  have  been  important  in  helping  to  develop  capabilities  for  bringing  longer-term
perspectives into play in decision-making.  Approaches centred on developing capabilities may
be  problematic  in  terms  of  evaluating  their  final  impact,  but  immediate  outputs  in  terms  of
people  having  undergone  training  (etc.),  and  their  own  evaluations  of  its  value,  are  easy  to
obtain.

A  product  orientation  may  be  particularly  necessary  if  there  is  a  need  to  inform  specific
decisions, where inputs such as reports and priority lists are required.  A process orientation
will be particularly relevant where there is seen to be a lack of networking between key actors.
One  of  the  aims  of  several  S&T-oriented  Foresight  programmes  was  to  help  strengthen
“national  systems  of  innovation”,  for  example,  linking  researchers,  policymakers,  and
industrialists.  In some circumstances where the creation of enhanced networks is not seen as
a  priority  –  for  example,  in  some  regions  most  of  the  key  decision-makers  may  know  each
other already. Here the task may be more one of introducing “Foresight culture” into existing
networks, by providing incentives for people to develop and exchange ideas about longer-term
issues,  and  by  enhancing  their  capabilities  to  develop  such  perspectives.    Some  Foresight
activities  focus  on  Foresight  culture  by  emphasising  training,  dissemination  of  skills  in
Foresight methods, etc.  These latter activities may be assessed in terms of credentials such
as diplomas awarded, numbers of people being trained, etc.; “product-oriented” exercises are
assessed  in  terms  of  the  timely  delivery  of  high-quality  reports,  etc.    But  more  process-
oriented,  network-building  exercises  are  much  harder  to  assess,  and  their  impacts  may  be
fairly invisible in the short term.  This can make it difficult to win support for such approaches
from policymakers and funding sources who do not fully appreciate the goals and principles of
Foresight.

Q2.5 So, what do these different approaches to Foresight have in common?

Foresight features a long-term orientation to examining a wide range of factors, drawing on widely-
distributed knowledge, in an institutionalised way, and using formal techniques

The discussion above has highlighted a number of ways in which Foresight exercises vary one
from another – in terms of area of focus, type of actors involved, extent of interaction, “bottom-
upness”, and focus on product or process.  It is appropriate to remind ourselves at this point
about  what  is  common  to  Foresight,  as  we  understand  it.    Q1.1  stressed  that  Foresight
involves  anticipation,  participation,  networking,  vision,  and  action.    These  common
features imply that, despite the range of types and methods of Foresight, we can expect that
Foresight activities will:
•  Have  a  long-term  orientation,  not  a  short-term  focus,  even  though  the  objective  is  to
inform current decisions.  Long-term generally refers to periods over ten years ahead,
immediate
though 

insight  generated  as 

there  may  well  be 

to  much  more 

22

developments,  and  Foresight  approaches  are  sometimes  applied  to  generating
shorter-term visions.

•  Examine a wide (but not diffuse) range of factors.  This means that Foresight requires
interdisciplinary  approaches,  with  the  pooling  and  sharing  of  very  different  kinds  of
expertise.    This  is  a  marked  contrast  with,  say,  conventional  long-term  economic  or
demographic modelling.

•  Be  interactive,  drawing  on  knowledge  and  views  that  are  distributed  across  many
sectors  and  organisations,  and  helping  to  build  links  between  these.    It  will  typically
seek to involve both researchers and actors such as policymakers and entrepreneurs
in the field of concern, so that knowledge of long-term developments can be fused with
the strategic thinking of decision-makers.

•  Also  generally  be  institutionalised,  creating  networks  and  channels  of  communication
between  these  different  actors.    In  many  cases  there  will  be  an  intention  that  these
should be sustainable networks, continuing to function (and engage in sharing longer-
term analyses) after the initial Foresight activity has been completed.  Practical steps
may be taken to ensure that this intention is realised, that the networks do not collapse
when a round of activity is over.

•  Employ  formal  techniques.    Free-ranging  discussion  and  debate  are  valuable,  but
alone  they  are  not  enough.    Ways  of  eliciting,  structuring  and  synthesising  different
points of view and sources of information are critical to Foresight.

These features are displayed to a lesser or greater extent in different Foresight activities: all of
them  need  to  be  present  to  some  degree  for  the  activity  to  be  reasonably  described  as
Foresight in the sense used in this ‘Practical Guide’.

Q2.6 How can formal methods be used in Foresight?

While the results of formal methods can be fed into Foresight as “forecasts”, it is more valuable to
relate the design and implementation of such methods to the interactive Foresight process.

Any  Foresight  exercise  will  involve  a  range  of  methods.  Some  of  these  will  relate  to  the
management  of  the  process,  the  securing  of  requisite  support  from  its  constituencies,  and
achieving results among its intended “users”.  The next main section of this ‘Practical Guide’
addresses such management issues and tools.  Other methods are used for the generation of
informed visions of long-term futures, and various formal techniques are used for this purpose.
More detail on these methods is provided in the Annexe.  Here we briefly outline the rationale
for using such formal techniques for generating informed visions of long-term futures.

These techniques were mainly developed in more narrow forecasting and futures studies.  The
results  of  such  studies  can  form  inputs  to  the  more  interactive  processes  that  characterise
Foresight.   The usefulness of the techniques, and the usability and relevance of the forecasts
and  other  results  they  produce,  are  typically  much  greater  if  they  actually  form  part  of  the
interactive  Foresight  process.    Their  value  is  lower  where  the  techniques  are  used  solely  to
produce forecasts that the Foresight process can assimilate (useful though this may be).   If
the design and implementation of the formal method has not been closely related to the wider
Foresight process, its results and the form that these outputs take are liable to have a greater
or lesser mismatch with the requirements of other parts of the process.  Furthermore, valuable
opportunities for mutual learning will have been lost.

23

For example, consider a Foresight exercise where it has been decided to use such methods
as  a  Delphi  questionnaire  or  computer  simulation.    Certainly  these  approaches  demand
specialist  expertise  and  a  good  deal  of  detailed  labour  to  implement  successfully.    But  this
does not mean that they are stand-alone activities.  Those  responsible for  implementing  the
Delphi or simulation (let us call these the “methodologists”) could meet with a large range of
participants  in  the  Foresight  process  more  widely.    Such  meetings  can  help  inform  the
methodologists  as  to  what  should  be  asked  in  the  survey,  what  should  be  modelled  in  the
simulation, into the process.  Inputs from the Foresight process more widely will thus be built
into the methods.  The results of the methods are thus more likely to be attuned to the process
more  generally,  dealing  with  relevant  parameters  and  other  considerations;  and  the
methodologists  will  have  a  better  understanding  of  the  communication  needs  of  other
participants in Foresight.

Such  interactions  can  also  have  considerable  functionality  for  the  Foresight  process  even
before any “results” are forthcoming, in the sense of forecasts from the model or survey.  This
is because the act of trying to generate, identify, and select among Delphi questions or model
parameters is in itself an important process.  It is a valuable opportunity for learning, for sharing
views,  for  discovering  areas  of  mutual  interest  and  points  of  disagreement  between
worldviews.  It is a practical task which can help focus the attention of members of panels of
expert groups, requiring them to start considering which topics deserve priority attention, where
there are factors which are outside the scope of present work, and so on.  It has been reported
that having such a task can be extremely telling in terms of getting a group of participants to
really concentrate their efforts, rather than “talk around” the subject with no clear trajectory to
their discussions.

Some  other  formal  methods,  of  course,  like  scenario  construction  workshops,  are  more
routinely a matter of engaging participants overtly in sharing their knowledge and views.  Often
such activities can valuably inform the narrower formal methods.  As in so much of Foresight,
the information flows are two-way.

The  use  of  formal  techniques,  then,  is  not  only  a  source  of  helpful  information  inputs  into
Foresight,  but  can  also  be  a  valuable  aid  to  structuring  and  stimulating  parts  of  the  more
interactive Foresight process.  This can sometimes be their most important role!

Q2.7 What  are the advantages and problems of using formal methods in

Foresight?

Formal methods provide results which can communicate key Foresight conclusions, check the
consistency of different aspects of the vision, help identify where more knowledge is needed, and
legitimise the exercise.

In  addition  to  providing  a  useful  focus  for  some  efforts  within  Foresight,  the  use  of  formal
methods  has  other  benefits.    Some  of  the  results  of  these  techniques  can  be  valuable
communication devices.  For instance, some formal methods yield graphs as outputs, others
produce  bullet-point  lists  or  narrative  visions  of  scenarios.    Such  outputs  can  help  users
assimilate and respond to the messages of a Foresight exercise.  However, a note of caution
should be sounded: lay people may be confused or alienated by lengthy reports, by statistics
and  complex  diagrams.    There  may  also  be  a  tendency  to  place  too  much  weight  on
quantitative outputs, as if data that can be represented as numbers or graphs are more real”
than trends and issues which we can only grasp qualitatively.

24

Another role of formal tools is in testing, and identifying weaknesses in, the internal coherence
of  Foresight.    These  tools  can  sometimes  help  point  out  inconsistencies  that  may  exist
between  different  parts  of  one  vision.    For  example,  when  an  effort  is  made  to  provide  a
quantitative framework for an exercise, it may reveal that several different candidates reckon
that the same resources are going to be devoted to their region, their field of R&D, etc.  This
sort of “accounting” task may be rather disappointing to those hoping for rapid progress on all
fronts, but can help validate the Foresight effort to sceptics in policymaking and elsewhere.

Formal tools are also often valuable in identifying points at which further knowledge is required
– there is nothing like trying to model a relationship to tell us how well (or badly) the underlying
processes  are  understood.      Priority  areas  for  better  statistics  and  new  analyses  of  social
dynamics may be rapidly encountered in Foresight studies – so we find the Uusimaa exercise
in Finland early on determining that new research was needed into the increasingly critical role
of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in that region.

Finally,  formal  methods  can  help  lend  an  exercise  more  legitimacy  than  is  forthcoming  for
material that is presented simply as a synthesis of expert views.  As we have already noted,
the outputs of formal methods always depend on non-technical assumptions and approaches.
This means that there are dangers of unexamined political ideologies and inadequate analysis
of  underlying  processes  being  incorporated  invisibly  into  such  outputs.    Even  the  most
sophisticated  method  is  only  as  good as  the  assumptions fed  into  it, and  it  is  important  that
Foresight  employs  a  variety  of  methods,  and  that  they  are  properly  scrutinised.    Ideally,
Foresight will help demystify these formal methods, and make participants far more aware of
both their strengths and their limitations.  This is liable to be a by-product of involving a wide
range  of  Foresight  participants  in  discussions  with  the  methodologists  about  design  and
implementation, as recommended above.

Except in the cases of rapidly conducted panel-based exercises, or programmes with a strong
emphasis on large-scale face-to-face interaction and bottom-up approaches, formal methods
are likely to be quite prominent in Foresight.  The question is not so much whether to use such
methods, as which to use, and how to use them.  There are few general rules here, but some
points to bear in mind are:
•  Some formal methods are more suitable for particular topics.  For example, economic
and demographic modelling  is  well-established, more  sociological  and political  issues
are  harder  to  address  in  models.    Similarly,  experts  who  can  provide  intelligence  on
S&T  developments  for  Delphi  analysis  are  typically  easier  to  locate  than  those  who
have equivalent knowledge about social trends and innovations, etc.

•  Formal  methods  vary  considerably  in  costs  –  large-scale  modelling  or  surveys  are
fairly expensive, for example. Formal methods can provide impressive output, and are
often  very  persuasive  –  sometimes  to  the  extent  of  unhealthily  stifling  debate,  or
forestalling wider participation in the Foresight process.

•  Methods that can be used to facilitate workshops and meetings and the “capture” their
results are still in their infancy.  Individual Foresight experts are often tied to particular
tools,  having  limited  experience  of  other  approaches.    It  is  worth  considering  and
experimenting  with  the use  of  such methods,  since  experience  suggests  that at  least
some of them can be very helpful.

25

Q2.8 What is the difference between exploratory and normative methods?

Exploratory methods begin from the present, and see where events and trends might take us;
normative methods begin from the future, asking what trends and events would take us there.

There  are  many  tools  in  use,  and  some  of  these  come  in  many  variants.    Our  bibliography
provides references to some major directories and guides to these tools, and an Annexe also
provides  more  detail.    Here  we  provide  a  brief  guide  to  some  of  the  main  characteristics  of
different tools.

A  fundamental  distinction  in  futures  and  forecasting  studies  is  commonly  drawn  between
exploratory  and  normative  methods.    This  terminology  is  well-established,  but  rather
misleading  (since  both  approaches  involve  exploration,  of  course,  and  both  call  into  play
questions about norms and values).  Still, the distinction is useful:
•  Exploratory  methods  are  “outward  bound”.    They  begin  with  the  present  as  the
starting point, and move forward to the future, either on the basis of extrapolating past
trends  or  causal  dynamics,  or  else  by  asking  “what  if?”  questions  about  the
implications of possible developments or events that may lie outside  of  these familiar
trends.    Trend,  impact,  and  cross-impact  analyses,  conventional  Delphi,  and  some
applications  of  models  are  among  the  tools  used  here.    The  majority  of  forecasting
studies are mainly  exploratory,  though  when  these  result  in  alarming  forecasts,  there
may well be an effort to locate turning points or policy actions that could create a more
desirable future.

•  Normative  methods  are,  in  contrast,  “inward  bound”.    They  start  with  a  preliminary
view  of  a  possible  (often  a  desirable)  future  or  set  of  futures  that  are  of  particular
interest.    They  then  work  backwards  to  see  if  and  how  these  might  futures  might  or
might  not  grow  out  of  the  present  –  hot  they  might  be  achieved,  or  avoided,  given
available constraints, resource and technologies.   The tools used here include various
techniques  developed  in  planning  and  related  activities,  such  as  relevance  trees  and
morphological  analyses,  together  with  some  uses  of  models  and  some  less
conventional  uses  of  Delphi  such  as  “goals  Delphi”  methods.    A  fairly  recent
development is the use of “success scenarios” and “aspirational scenario workshops”,
where participants try to establish a shared vision of a future that is both desirable and
credible, and to identify the ways in which this might be achieved.

There is little evidence as to when each of these approaches is most valuable, and again in
practice we often find Foresight involving a mixture of the two.   It may be that more normative
approaches  are  most  likely  to  be  effective  where  there  is  a  widely  shared  goal  already  in
existence, and where Foresight can then help put flesh on the implicit vision of the future.  For
example,  a  common  long-term  regional  goal  will  be  for  more  rapid  and  equitable  economic
development in the region; or where S&T issues are at stake, it may be to achieve a secure
grip  on  at  least  some  niches  of  technology  innovation,  production  and  use.    In  such  cases,
normative  approaches  can  be  powerful  inputs  into  priority-setting  and  other  elements  of
decision-making  (and  help  provide  road-maps  and  indicators  that  can  be  used  to  monitor
progress  towards  the  desired  future).      In  other  cases,  normative  approaches  may  be
considered insufficiently objective, or there may be a lack of consensus as to shared goals, at
least in early stages of the Foresight process.  Exploratory methods can then be expected to
dominate.

26

Q2.9 What weight should be put on quantitative as opposed to more qualitative

methods?

Foresight usually draws on both approaches, which provide distinctive inputs into grasping the
problems we are dealing with: quantitative data are often given a great deal of weight, but they
should not be allowed to dominate.

reliance  on  numerical 

Another important distinction is between quantitative and qualitative methods:
•  Quantitative  methods  place  heavy 

representation  of
developments.    These  have  considerable  advantages  (ability  to  examine  rates  and
scales  of  change,  to  engage  in  basic  accountancy-type  testing  of  the  consistency  of
different elements of the whole). They also have notable disadvantages (limited grasp
of  many  important  social  and  political  variables,  dangers  of  spurious  precision,
problems  of  communicating  with  less  numerate  audiences).    Often  quantitative
methods  implicitly  or  explicitly  use  simple  models  of  some  sort.    For  example,  time
series  extrapolations  of  trends  imply  a  model  in  that  use  time  as  the  “independent
variable” – really, as a proxy for unmeasured processes that take place in time.  More
complex models relate variables together so their mutual influences can be tracked.  In
so-called  dynamic  models  this  is  tracked  over  time,  whereas  the  sort  of  equilibrium
models often employed by economists assume a move from a present state towards a
(allegedly more balanced) future state.  Some quantitative approaches involve experts
putting numerical values to developments, or creating such values on the basis of the
numbers of people agreeing with particular statements or forecasts (as in Delphi).
•  Qualitative  methods  are,  of  course,  often  employed  where  the  key  trends  or
developments are hard to capture via simplified indicators, or where such data are not
available.    In  addition,  various  forms  of  creative  thinking  are  encouraged  by  such
qualitative approaches as brainstorming, utopian writing and science fiction.   Methods
for  working  systematically  with  qualitative  data  are  becoming  more  widely  available
with  the  development  of  Information  Technology  –  tools  for  “mind  mapping”  and
”conversation  analysis”,  etc.  –  which  can  also  be  helpful  devices  for  facilitating
the  development  of  qualitative
meetings  and  workshops. 
methodologies  in  social  science,  as  well  as  in  forecasting  and  Foresight,  has  lagged
behind that of quantitative approaches, and there has often been an explicit or implicit
reliance  on  an  expert  figure  to  pull  together  the  strands  of  qualitative  analyses  and
come up with a synthesis by more or less intuitive means.  In the last decade or so this
situation has improved considerably, and a great many tools – often computer-based –
for capturing and analysing qualitative data, and processing and representing results of
  (For  example,  mind-mapping  and
such  analyses,  have  become  available. 
conversational analysis have been employed in some Foresight studies.)

  For  many  years 

The  exact  mix  of  methods  is  highly  dependent  on  access  to  relevant  expertise,  and  on  the
nature  of  the  problems  being  studied.    They  represent  different  approaches  to  handling
information, and can contribute powerful insights in their own ways.  There is a strongly-rooted
tendency  to  place  more  weight  on  statistical  information  (or  quantitative  data  that  may  not
really merit the term “statistical”).  This is misguided: such data can be invaluable in giving a
broad overview, in demonstrating the incidence of phenomena, the representativeness of case
studies or opinions, and the like.   But they can rarely probe the dynamics of a phenomenon in
any depth, and are restricted to concepts and indicators that are usually quite limited and liable
to give only a partial hold on the issues at stake.

27

In practice  Foresight  work  can  never  be  completely  dominated  by  quantitative  methods  and
their results.  The task is to establish an appropriate role for such methods.

Qualitative  approaches  may  well,  incidentally,  involve  some  quantitative  elements.    For
example, in a scenario workshop participants may be asked to vote on, or rate, topics to be
considered in more detail.   Statements about factors that need to be taken into account may
be captured and grouped according  to  the frequency  with  which  they  have  been  voiced  (for
example  in  conversational  analyses,  or  via  the  use  of  computer-conferencing  techniques).
Equally, qualitative judgements will necessarily inform quantitative activities – the definition of a
parameter,  the  interpretation  of  a  questionnaire  item  involves  qualitative  judgements.    But
perhaps the major issue differentiating the approaches is that qualitative methods still remain
less  well-documented  than  quantitative  ones,  and  it  can  be  harder  to  establish  what  good
practice  in  applying  them  to  Foresight  is.    This  is  particularly  true  of  some  of  the  newer
computer-based methods for group-working, and it is likely that most Foresight designers will
want to use these in an experimental way only, for the immediate future.

Q2.10 Are there other important variations in approach underlying the formal

methods used in Foresight?

The use of expert opinion may be contrasted with analyses based more on following through
assumptions – again the approach used is determined by the problem and context confronted.

A  third  critical  distinction  is  between  methods  that  centre  on  examining  and  articulating  the
views of experts, and those based more on investigating the consequences of assumptions:
•  Expert-based  techniques  seek  to  draw  out  informed  opinion  and  the  evidence  that
underlies  expert  judgements.    They  seek  to  articulate  views  about  the  future,  of  the
trends  and  contingencies  that  may  give  rise  to  alternative  futures,  and  of  goals  that
should be striven for and the critical priorities and strategies here.  The approach may
involve  large-scale  surveys  of  opinion  (such  as  Delphi),  or  much  smaller  and  more
detailed  elaboration  of  visions  (such  as  cross-impact  analysis,  scenario  workshops,
etc.).  Where the issues tackled in Foresight are ones of wide concern, and especially
where  they  deal  with  social  change,  the  “experts”  may  be  effectively  the  whole
population  -  representative  views  may  be  developed  from  samples  of  the  general
public.    Results  may  be  presented  in  quantitative  form  (e.g.  Delphi  estimates  of  the
date  at  which  particular  developments  will  manifest),  or  qualitatively  (e.g.  narrative
scenarios).

•  Assumption-based  techniques  are  ones  that  elaborate  visions  and  priorities  on  the
basis  of  knowledge  that  is  usually  already  public  (available  statistics,  published
analyses  of  what  likely  breakthroughs  or  other  developments  and  contingencies).
Sometimes  shortage  of  relevant  data  may  lead  to  a  special  activity  to  generate
relevant statistics – for example, we have already noted how in Finland, interest in the
role of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services led to a specific study of these firms in
the  Uusimaa  region.    Assumption-based  techniques  are  often  more  reliant  on  expert
interactive
practitioners  (described  earlier  as  “methodologists”) 
approaches.  For instance, technical expertise is required to set up a simulation model
to describe an issue of interest.  (Here the model will calculate the results of variables
influencing  each  other  –  relevant  data  has  to  be  used  to  “calibrate”  the  parameters,
and  critical  assumptions  are  required  to  involve  the  relationships  between  these
variables  -  and  no  assumptions  are  more  critical  than  the  selection  of  appropriate
variables in the first place.  As argued above, it is quite possible – and often desirable -

than  on  more 

28

for these “technical” steps to be highly influenced by interaction with a broader set  of
actors  than  just  the  technical  experts  in  such  a  methodology,  for  example.    A  more
qualitative  (but  more  expert-based)  approach  would  be  to  involve  a  small  team  in
constructing  scenarios  based  on  assumptions  that  particular  events  or  causal
sequences  will  unfold,  that  particular  worldviews  adequately  describe  the  course  of
events, etc.

It would be easy to imagine that assumption-based methods are mainly quantitative in form –
but Delphis are expert-based and yield quantitative results, and some sorts of scenario work
are mainly qualitative but highly assumption-based.  The key issue at stake here is how far we
are  able  to  rely  upon  data  and  knowledge  of  processes  and  relationships  that  has  already
been  codified  and  subject  to  some  scrutiny,  as  opposed  to  having  to  elicit  opinions  and
guesstimates from experts as to what might be the state of affairs now and in the future.  The
nature of the topics considered in Foresight is such that a combination of the two will almost
invariably  be  called for.    Expert  judgements  have  to  be  deployed  where  we  are  considering
rapid  change,  qualitative  breaks,  social  and  technological  innovations.    The  questions  that
arise are more those of how to use such opinion than whether to.  The issues that arise are:
•  Can we locate relevant expertise?  Can we remain within the region to do so, or do we

have to draw on external sources?

•  Do  we  aim  to  sample  views  from  a  wide  range  of  experts,  or  concentrate  on  the  in-

depth analyses of a smaller number – or to combine both approaches?

Q2.11 How can I go about identifying the Foresight approach appropriate for my

situation?

The issue is one of choosing the appropriate balance of approaches, and this will be influenced by
the problems at stake, the resources to hand – and the political context.

This  discussion  has  not  tried  to  explain  “how  to”  utilise  particular  methods  in  any  detail.
Rather, its purpose has  been to characterise different methods, and  to  indicate  some of the
main features that differentiate among methods.   For more  information  on  specific methods,
consult  the  Annexe.    We  have  also  avoided  saying  that  you  should  use  one  or  other
approach;  rather  we  have  attempted  to  pinpoint  critical  issues  that  you  will  need  to  take  on
board in planning which mix of approaches to use.  And, to tell the truth, it is almost always
going to be a mixture of the different approaches – the big question is just what sort of balance
will be struck.

The  particular  balance  of  approaches  to  Foresight  that  will  be  chosen  should  depend,  of
course, on the specific circumstances that are confronted.  This may seem to be an obvious
point.  Nevertheless, there have been several cases of an approach simply being copied from
one  context  to  another,  without  adequate  appraisal  of  how  the  approach  might  need  to  be
modified or restructured to deal with the new circumstances.  In some of these cases this has
led to major failure in the Foresight process, and a loss of political support for Foresight.

What can be chosen, in practice, is going to depend upon various political circumstances.  It
may be that senior policymakers have an entrenched idea of what Foresight should be, they
may even be seeking to “keep up with the Joneses”, to emulate the impressive programmes
that have been tried elsewhere.  There may be high-level doubt that a broad public could have
anything  of  value  to  say  about  important  topics,  or  it  may  be  feared  that  a  process  of  wide

29

consultation could exacerbate existing ethnic, political or civil strife.  Results may be required to
inform  extremely  pressing policy  decisions,  or  to convince  international aid  or  loan  agencies
that serious strategic analyses have been conducted.  We discuss some of the challenges to
implementing  Foresight  in  the  discussion  of  implementation  of  Foresight  in  Part  II  of  this
‘Practical  Guide’.    This  highlights,  among  other  things,  the  need  for  scoping  and  feasibility
studies prior to embarking on a major exercise.  Such studies will often be required to arrive at
an exercise ‘plan’, and they are also important for convincing actors of Foresight’s merits - as
can other strategies, such as soliciting contributions from international experts to pre-Foresight
meetings.

We may have to accept that something less than the ideal is all that can be achieved in current
circumstances.    To  the  extent  that  we  do  a  good  job  now,  explain  as  far  as  possible  why
particular  choices  have  been  made,  and  make  our  case  for  doing  things  differently  in  the
future, there may be hope for continuous improvement in Foresight in our regions.

The presentation of outputs from a Foresight exercise also needs to be planned.  It should be
tailored to the needs of its target audience, which may require the use of a number of different
formats.  Linked to this, consideration needs to be given to follow-up activities – the available
resource  base  (financial,  human,  infrastructural  and  cultural)  will  be  an  important  factor
enabling  you  to  do  some  things,  but  equally  limiting  what  you  can  aim  for.    These
considerations are the focus of later chapters in this Guide.

30

PART II – Implementing Regional Foresight
PART II – Implementing Regional Foresight
PART II – Implementing Regional Foresight
PART II – Implementing Regional Foresight

The purpose of Part II of this Practical Guide is to enable you to begin to appreciate the steps
involved in organising a regional Foresight exercise, and its structure should provide you with a
useful  framework  within  which  a  Foresight  blueprint  can  be  developed  for  your  region.
Throughout, we offer you possible options to consider within the context of your own region,
options that are based upon the latest understanding of the conduct of Foresight in regions.

Before making any considerations of the structural and planning aspects of Foresight, Part II
begins (Chapter 3 – background) by asking you to consider a number of key baseline aspects
that  will  determine  at  a  substantial  level  the  overall  thematic  orientation  that  your  regional
Foresight effort should take, and which will fix at a macro-level the boundaries and ambitions in
terms  of  the  impact  that  can  be  expected.    These  background  considerations  will  be  highly
dependent on your region.

Chapter  3  continues  by  asking  you  to  think  about  the  scope  of  your  regional  Foresight
exercise – for example, what will be the focus, who will participate, how much do you plan to
spend, and how long will the exercise last?  You may have some answers to these questions,
but  you  will  probably  need  to  convince  others  of  your  arguments.    This  is  the  subject  of
Chapter  4,  which  provides  you  with  some  pointers  on  how  to  build  momentum  behind
proposals for a Foresight exercise in your region.  Here, we also provide some options for you
to consider when trying to secure sponsorship for the exercise.

Once financial and political support has been secured and the scope of the exercise finalised,
you  will  be  able  to  determine  the  structure  and  organisation  of  your  Foresight  activities
(Chapter  5).    For  example,  will  you  set  up  panels?    How  will  you  deal  with  cross-sectoral
issues?    A  fully  developed  (though  flexible)  blueprint  should  now  be  the  aim,  which  should
detail  the  inputs  that  will  be  required,  and  the  processes  and  methods  to  be  used  to
systematically think about the future.  The shape of the desired outputs and the way in which
you could take action on the findings of Foresight in your region are the subject of Chapter 6,
which also considers how you might evaluate the outcomes of your Foresight activities and
establish Foresight as a continuous regional activity.

31

CHAPTER 3 – BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

A  lot  of  Foresight  and  strategic  futures  activity  tends  to  emerge  in  response  to  perceived
moments of social or political crisis or at some critical break point in established trends.  For
Foresight,  it  is  important  to  interpret  the  prevailing  situation  in  terms  of  challenges.  Critical
challenges must be identified and expressed in an unambiguous way to serve as a touchstone
as  a  Foresight  activity  unfolds.    The  critical  challenges  should  thus  set  the  main  thematic
orientation of the Foresight exercise.  However, before beginning an implementation plan, it is
equally important to measure these challenges against regional actors’ and institutions’ remit
and decision-making powers. This will help to temper the expectations of participants and will
make it easier for you to identify which Foresight outputs can be followed up locally and which
will require action at other territorial levels.

Take stock of 
1. Existing 
information and 
2. Planning / 
policy processes 

Assess where there are 
gaps and deficiencies 
in both 

Identify the main
problem/ issue

Scoping Regional 
Foresight: 
A Process 
of Iteration and 
Interdependence 

Determine the 
type of foresight 
activity to 
undertake 

Objectives 

Focus 

Develop a preliminary specification in terms of 
coverage, time horizon, duration, participation,
cost (to take through to the next stage - Structure
& Organisation)

32

 
Questions
Q3.1 : What challenges will my region

have to face over the coming
decades?

Q3.2 : What is the role of the different
players located in the region in
the face of these challenges?
Q3.3 : What will be the objectives of

Foresight in my region?

Q3.4 : How could I choose the focus

of Foresight in my region?

Q3.5 : How could Foresight be

‘positioned’ vis-à-vis existing
policies and programmes?

Q3.6 : What types of themes and/or
sectors should my exercise
cover?

Q3.7 : What would be the most

suitable time horizon for my
regional Foresight to adopt?

Q3.8 : Who should be involved in my
regional Foresight exercise?

Q3.9 : How long will it take to conduct

a Foresight exercise in my
region?

Q3.10 : How much will it cost?

Summary answer

Regional challenges are not always
obvious, but Foresight can be used to
identify some of these
It will be necessary to assess whether
challenges can be fully addressed by
regional players
Many objectives can be set for regional
Foresight, but these need to be clearly
stated from the outset
Regional Foresight exercises tend to have
more than a single focus, although it is not
uncommon for there to be a predominant
orientation towards a particular set of issues
Foresight activities can be arranged as
relatively ‘stand-alone’ exercises organised
by regional public authorities or they can be
embedded in existing policies, programmes
and strategy-making processes
Themes and sector coverage depends upon
objectives and foci of the exercise.  Some of
the more grandiose exercises have covered
around 20 areas, although fewer than 10 is
more typical
Time horizons tend to vary from 5 years up
to 20 years, reflecting, for the most part, the
varying identities of projected beneficiaries
from Foresight products and processes
Regional actors such as regional
governments, universities, businesses,
chambers of commerce, local media,
industry associations and NGOs are often
involved in regional Foresight
An exercise lasts typically between 6
months and 3 years

Costs can vary. They will depend on
location of activities, scope of the exercise,
number of people in the project
management team, organisation of events,
approach selected, etc.

33

Q3.1 What challenges will my region have to face over the coming decades?

Regional challenges are not always obvious, but Foresight can be used to identify some of these.

This is perhaps the most important question to pose before beginning to scope your regional
Foresight activities.   The  notion  of  what  constitutes  a  challenge  is obviously  very  subjective.
Externally  driven  examples  could  be  of  a  political  (e.g.  EU  enlargement  implications  for
regional development funding, central government decision to change devolution of power) or
economic  (e.g.  global  competition  threats  to  local  firms,  sectors  and  employment)  nature.
Internal  examples  could  relate  to  inefficiencies  in  the  economic  and  innovation  systems,  or
gaps in hard (e.g. logistics) or soft infrastructure (e.g. technology centres).

Sometimes  the  main  challenge  to  a  region  is  clear  and  unambiguous.    If  it  is  not,  then  its
identification  can  become  the  first  step  of  the  Foresight  process  itself.    It  is  difficult  for  this
Guide to prescribe types of challenges or ways to identify the most important ones (although
earlier  sections  have  highlighted  some  of  the  common  challenges  currently  facing  regions).
Brainstorming  approaches  are  often  one  way  to  leverage  ideas  guided  by  the  criterion  of
thinking about what will matter in the long term.  If such an approach is to be followed, you will
need  to  think  about  who  should  have  a  say  in  framing  and  articulating  the  main  challenges
facing the region.

One  stimulus  used  in  a  regional  Foresight  simulation  conducted  within  FOREN  was  to
consider  issues  and  problems  relating  to  four  critical  resources  on  which  local  and  regional
development arguably depends:
•  Local  Institutions  (i.e.  governance  issues  relating  to  policy,  political  competence,
efficient  administration,  sophistication  of  public  debate  on  policy  and  development
issues)

•  Business Structure (main economy related features and business issues)
•  Knowledge Infrastructure (R&D, education & training, technology transfer)
•  Social Capital (informal relationships and networking, trust, solidarity, etc.).

The  diagram  below  provides  a  sample  of  some  issues  relating  to  each  of  these  critical
resources.

Local Institutions
•  Long-term thinking and

strategy

•  Wide and distributed
policy making process

Knowledge Infrastructure
•  Link research & business
•  Optimised knowledge

institutions

Business Structure

•  Network formation
•  SME technological and
strategic competence

Social Capital
•  Network formation
•  Long-term visionary

thinking

My
Region

34

Q3.2 What is the role of the different players located in the region in the face of

these challenges?

It will be necessary to assess whether challenges can be fully addressed by regional players.

Once you have identified the challenges, it is important for you to consider the extent to which
the  organisations  based  in  your  region,  be  they  public  or  private,  are  able  to  influence  or
respond to such challenges:
•  Some  issues  are  best  addressed  by  the  private  sector,  but  this  does  not  preclude
public  administration  from  leading  or  facilitating  a  Foresight  exercise  as  a  forum  for
private businesses, for example, to  help  them  reach  consensus  on  what  actions they
might need to take.

•  Other  issues  will  have  a  national  or  global  reach  and  therefore  the  crux  will  be  to
identify the appropriate perspective to take at regional level, and consider how regional
Foresight considerations might be linked to those at higher territorial levels.

•  The  challenges  to  address  may  be  highly  pertinent  to  your  region,  but  the  political

competence to deal with the issues may or may not reside in your organisation.

These are just a few of the considerations to bear in mind. However, the underlying questions
of  competence,  prerogative  and  authority,  are  absolutely  vital.    Since  Foresight  is  a
participatory  process  involving  time  and  commitment  from  stakeholder  representatives,  your
activities  must  carry  a  stamp  of  approval  strong  enough  to  assure  participants  that  they  are
engaged  in a  worthwhile  endeavour. This  in  turn  implies  that  Foresight  findings  and  outputs
must  be  followed-up  and  acted  upon.  Otherwise,  stakeholders  will  not  give  you  a  second
chance.

Q3.3 What will be the objectives of Foresight in my region?

Many objectives can be set for regional Foresight, but these need to be clearly stated from the outset.

Objectives  should  be  clearly  stated,  internally  consistent,  and,  at  least  in  the  first  instance,
should avoid  being  too  specific.   The  latter  is  important  to  gain  widespread  support  for  your
activities early on, although care must be taken not to promise too much to too many regional
players.  Ideally, objectives should be debated amongst key regional players in order to ensure
early buy-in to the exercise.

Part I of this Guide has set out some of the reasons why regions undertake Foresight, and you
might want to refer back to this when thinking about setting objectives for your own Foresight
activities.    The  case  description  chapters  also  illustrate  formal  objectives  adopted  in  other
regions, some of which are shown in the table below.

Region

West Midlands

Nord – Pas de Calais

Province of Liege

Lombardy

Objectives

To support SME competitiveness through the demonstration and uptake of
Foresight best practice
To initiate a more strategic approach in the elaboration of the council’s regional
plan
To build a consensual view amongst experts on the region’s prospects for
taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the Information Society
To identify the level of technological competitiveness of the region’s most
important sectors

35

When done well, regional Foresight is more a
process  than  an  academic  study,  and  the
involvement and mobilisation of regional actors
is one  of  the  key  success factors  and  can  be
seen  as  an  objective  in  itself.    One  can  plot
some 
regional
typical  objectives  set 
Foresight , shown here using the axes:
•  The  mobilisation  of  regional  actors  and

for 

consensus building

•  The  ability 
policymaking 
processes.

to 

inform  and  shape
decision-making

and 

+

i

g
n
k
a
m
y
c

i
l

o
P

-

Develop change capacity

Informing policy

Learning

Vision

Building networks

Economic growth

Promote competitiveness

Focus on special
regional issues

Social orientation

-

Regional mobilisation

+

Q3.4 How could I choose the focus of Foresight in my region?

Regional Foresight exercises tend to have more than a single focus, although it is not uncommon for
there to be a predominant orientation towards a particular set of issues.

There are undoubtedly a number of ways to think about the focus of any Foresight activity,
but this Guide has chosen the following classification in the regional context:
•  Social,  where  the  emphasis  is  on  human  development,  covering  issues  such  as
demography,  settlement,  mobility,  identity,  sense  of  belonging,  citizenship,  networks,
human capital, education and training, and healthcare.

•  Science and Technology, where the emphasis is on technological developments on
the one hand, and market opportunities and social needs on the other.  This has been
the most common focus at the national level, but is where results at the regional level
are often less relevant.

•  Business  Dynamics,  where  the  stress  is  on  economic  development,  with  activities

often focused upon enterprise clusters, SMEs, industry associations, etc.

•  Territorial  vision,  where  the  region  is  considered  as  a  whole  as  the  nexus  for  four
main  global  issue  areas:  geography  (resources,  environment,  etc.),  geopolitics,
economy and human development.

In fact, most regional Foresight exercises do not have a single focus, but a combination,
as  shown  in  the  matrix  diagrams  below.    Here,  two  regions  are  shown,  one  in  France
(Limousin) and the other in the UK (West Midlands).  It is interesting to note the contrast in
Foresight  focus  between  these  two  regions,  a  situation  that  can  be  largely  explained  by
the extent of regional devolution in both countries.  In France, ‘territorial prospective’ has
become firmly established over the last fifteen years, and there is a strong territorial and
social  agenda  that  reflects  the  development  of  regional  devolution  during  this  time.    In
contrast, there has been little devolution to English regions such as West Midlands, other
than the recent establishment of Regional Development Agencies  (RDAs),  which  have  a
predominant business focus.  It is therefore unsurprising to see that  the  English  region’s
Foresight activities are skewed towards business dynamics.

36

 
E.g. The Limousin ‘focus matrix’

E.g. West Midlands ‘focus matrix’

Technology 

Technology 

Social 

Social 

Business 
Dynamics 

Business 
Dynamics 

Territorial vision 

Territorial vision 

These  two  examples  illustrate  the  importance  of  considering  what  power  and  competence
regional-based  institutions  and  processes  have  to  influence  or  respond  to  particular
challenges.  Such an assessment will need to be made, preferably in consultation with major
regional players, prior to any decision on the focus of regional Foresight activities.  The history
of Foresight in the region should also be considered, as well as any existing activities, since
these could suggest important lessons to be learnt.

Q3.5 How could Foresight be ‘positioned’ vis-à-vis existing policies and

programmes?

Foresight activities can be arranged as relatively ‘stand-alone’ exercises organised by regional
public authorities or they can be embedded in existing policies, programmes and strategy-making
processes.

In  some  regions,  Foresight  activities  have  been  managed  as  relatively  ‘stand-alone’
exercises  organised  by  regional  public  authorities.    This  is  perhaps  most  evident  in
France,  where  a  number  of  regions  have  organised  grand-style  territorial  prospective
exercises  with  the  objective  of  generating  overall  territorial  visions.    Such  exercises  are
often  located  away  from  service  delivery  centres  and  are  instead  situated  in  strategic
positions, e.g. central planning departments or other central positions, such as the  office
of  the  regional  ‘governor’.    By  virtue  of  their  broad  focus  and  central  position,  these
exercises  often  address  cross-thematic  and  cross-sectoral  issues,  which  can  be  missed
by existing institutions and processes. This semi-detachment can also make their results
difficult  to  implement,  especially  if  regional  government  and/or  business  are  organised
along ‘traditional’ lines.

For  this  reason,  some  people  believe  that  regional  Foresight  should  not  be  a  detached
activity,  but  rather  an  activity  that  should  be  embedded  in  existing  policies,  programmes
and strategy-making processes.  This requires a quite different mode of organisation from
a  more  centralised  exercise,  and  is  likely  to  be  more  discrete,  using  existing  policy  or
business support programmes and frameworks.   Such  approaches  also  tend to be more
process- than product-oriented, explicitly seeking to influence processes and behaviour at
the micro-level.  The UK approach to regional Foresight is perhaps closest to this model,
as  exemplified  by  the  NE  England  and  West  Midlands  case  studies  provided  in  later
sections of this Guide. However, as the Uusimaa case study suggests, there is a danger
that  Foresight  activities  can  become  totally  subordinated  to  everyday  information  needs,
whereas Foresight should really be about thinking ‘outside of the box’.

37

 
 
Q3.6 What types of themes and/or sectors should my exercise cover?

Themes and sector coverage depends upon objectives and foci of the exercise.  Some of the more
grandiose exercises have covered around 20 areas, although fewer than 10 is more typical.

The  answer  to  this  question  mostly  depends  upon  the  objectives  and  foci  of  your  Foresight
activities,  although  the  inability  to  cover  all  possible  regional  themes  and/or  sectors must  be
recognised from the outset.  For example, if a predominantly sector development focus is to be
followed, are all business sectors in the region to be covered?  This is highly unlikely, not least
due  to  the  costs  and  co-ordination  efforts  involved,  and  so  some  form  of  selection  will  be
necessary.  The same selection challenge will apply where themes or problems are taken as
the starting point, as in the more territorial and social type exercises.  How this selection has
been  done  within  regions  is  often  unclear,  but  existing  strategic  priorities,  SWOT  analyses,
lobbying by interest groups, and even fads and fashions all seem to have played an important
part.      Again,  this  is  an  area  where  consultation  of  key  regional  players  is  likely  to  pay
dividends, since it increases the likelihood of firm commitment to later stages in the exercise.
Nonetheless,  it  is  possible  that  there  will  be  demand  for  more  themes  and/or  sectors  to  be
addressed than resources or time will allow, and some difficult decisions will perhaps have to
be taken.

As  for  the  number  of  areas  to  cover,  some  of  the  French  exercises  we  examined  (e.g.
Limousin,  Grand  Lyon)  have  set  up  around  20  working  groups,  with  each  looking  at  a
particular theme or sector, whereas in other places, perhaps only 5-10 such groups have been
established.    In  fact,  there  are  often  attempts  to  tackle  cross-sectoral  and/or  cross-thematic
areas, where some of the most interesting synergies are thought to lie.  The table below shows
that  a  broad  range  of  themes  and  sectors,  both  emerging  and  long-standing,  have  been
addressed by regional Foresight activities.

Region

West Midlands

Limousin 2017

Catalonia 2010

Uusimaa

Examples of Themes or Sectors
Addressed

Creative Industries
Medical Technologies
Engineering Design
Services
Agriculture
Identity, Images and Creativity
Telecommunications
External transport links
Catalan identity
Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS)
Employment in voluntary sector

Nord – Pas de Calais Waste Materials

New Services
Urban Structure

38

At first sight, most of these remarks on coverage would seem to concern relatively centralised
regional  Foresight  activities,  where  logistical  and  co-ordination  concerns  naturally  limit  the
scope of activities.  Indeed, more distributed Foresight activities, initiated and co-ordinated by a
wide variety of regional players, would seem to overcome many of these limitations, at least in
theory, thus allowing a whole multitude of themes and sectors to be simultaneously addressed.
This is a state of affairs that many regions would like to achieve, but, of course, its realisation
often  requires  initiation  efforts  to  catalyse  the  start-up  of  Foresight  activities.    Perhaps
inevitably,  these  initiation  efforts  must  be  targeted,  given  resource  constraints,  bringing  you
back to the  original selection  challenge.   This  situation  is  perhaps best  illustrated by  the  UK
regional  Foresight  experience,  where  the  emphasis  has  been  on  facilitating  other  regional
players  to  initiate  and  organise  their  own  Foresight  activities.    Even  here,  it  has  proved
impossible  to  select  and  target  more  than  a  handful  of  business  sectors  (often  clusters)  for
attention at any one time.  Another way to deal with this selection challenge would be to put in
place a ‘rolling’ programme of regional Foresight activities, with perhaps 4-5 different themes
and/or sectors addressed  each  year.   We  will  discuss  this more fully  in  Chapter 6  when  we
come to discuss ‘continuous’ regional Foresight.

A  key  disadvantage  of  these more  distributed  and  often-piecemeal  activities  is  that  they  are
poor at providing regional ‘vision’.  This is because they tend to focus on a small number of
themes  and/or  sectors,  they  often  lack  region-wide  visibility,  and  they  tend  to  miss  cross-
cutting issues.  This is not to say that they are ineffective. On the contrary, some people would
argue that this more modest and targeted approach has longer-lasting impact than many of the
more grandiose exercises initiated by other regions.  Very little research has been conducted
to test this hypothesis, but it would seem that both approaches have some role, which could
certainly be complementary.

Q3.7 What would be the most suitable time horizon for my regional Foresight to

adopt?

Time horizons tend to vary from 5 years up to 20 years, reflecting, for the most part, the variable
identities of projected beneficiaries of Foresight products and processes.

The time horizon refers to a future point in time that limits the temporal scope and future
orientation  of  regional  Foresight  activities.    In  the  French  ‘territorial  prospective’  studies,
this  has  tended  to  be  around  20  years,  whereas  in  studies  orientated  towards  sector
development,  commonly  undertaken  in  the  UK,  time  horizons  tend  to  be  significantly
shorter, sometimes as little as 5 years.  These differences basically reflect different users,
with regional planners more likely to find longer time horizons useful than, say, small and
medium  sized  enterprises  (SMEs).    As  a  rule  of  thumb,  the  time  horizon  of  regional
Foresight should at least be beyond the normal planning horizons of the players involved.
Some examples are given below:

West
Midlands
5 years

Baltic
STRING
10 years

Catalonia
2010
20 years

Limousin
2017
20 years

Grand Lyon
Millenaire3
20 years

39

An  apparent  paradox  of  regional  Foresight  is  that  whilst  a  long  time  horizon  provides  the
opportunity to develop a broad vision for the territory, most players’ expectations are for short-
term activities.  In fact, there is no paradox here – regional Foresight is instigated in order to
think about possible futures, with a view to changing what we do today for the better.  Regional
Foresight is about readjustment in the present to create more agile regions for the future.

l
a
n
o
g
e
R

i

n
o
i
s
i
V

e
p
o
c
s

l
a
n
o
g
e
R

i

n
o
i
s
i
V

e
p
o
c
s

Planning 

Foresight 

Planning

Foresight 

Years 

5 

10 

20

Years

5

10 

20

Q3.8 Who should be involved in my regional Foresight exercise?

Regional actors such as regional governments, universities, businesses, chambers of commerce,
local media, industry associations and NGOs are often involved in regional Foresight.

Linked  to  the  coverage  of  regional  Foresight  activities  is  the  breadth  and  depth  of
participation  by  regional  players.  A  broad  range  of  regional  actors,  including  regional
governments,  universities,  businesses,  chambers  of  commerce,  local  media,  industry
associations,  other  NGOs,  and  the  wider  citizenry,  could  all  potentially  be  included  in
regional Foresight.  Again, the focus of Foresight activities will have a significant bearing
here,  with  sector  development  type  exercises  tending  to  engage  mostly  business
interests, whilst social and territorial Foresight will most likely see attempts to engage with
the wider public.

Regional  Foresight  exercises  can  potentially  involve  thousands  of  participants  from  a  wide
variety  of  organisations  and  backgrounds,  though  it  is  typical  for  some  groups  to  be  more
actively engaged than others.  National Foresight exercises have typically shown a preference
for  engaging  ‘experts’,  a  reflection  of  their  early  preoccupation  with  science  and  technology
issues,  although  this  is  now  changing.    Notions  of  ‘expertise’  are  likely  to  be  broader  at  the
regional level, particularly where more socio-cultural issues are concerned.

Nevertheless, your region might be well endowed with universities and leading companies with
pools of talent and expertise that can be useful for informing your Foresight activities, although
you will need to consider the extent to which such organisations identify with the region.  There
are  well-known  examples  of  world-class  universities  having  few  links  with  their  immediate
region, and  even  more  instances  of  international  firms  showing  minimal  interest  in  the  long-

40

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
term  development  strategies  of  the  regions  in  which  they  are  located.    On  the  other  hand,
Foresight can be an opportunity to engage such organisations in a regional agenda.

A further issue on involvement concerns regional politicians – what should their role be in
regional Foresight?  There is no clear-cut answer to this question, and much will depend
upon  the  political  culture  of  the  region,  and  indeed,  the  nation-state.    Deep  political
involvement can mean that things get done more quickly, but there are electoral risks that
could result in an exercise being ‘tainted’.

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  wide  engagement  is  often  expensive  and  difficult  to  co-
ordinate,  which  means  that  many  exercises  show  a  preference  for  the  establishment  of
stakeholder  and/or  expert  working  groups  that  are  considered  as  spokespersons  for  a
particular  area.    You  will  have  to  assess  the  level  of  commitment  expected  of  such
participants, in terms of the amount of time and effort that they will need to devote to the
exercise.  This will require some careful planning, and participants will need to be told at
the  start  what  is  expected  of  them.    Nevertheless,  you  will  probably  underestimate  the
effort  involved,  but  the  spirit  of  participants  normally  compensates,  since  the  Foresight
process  typically  enthuses  individuals  to  work  beyond  the  confines  of  the  normal  ‘call  of
duty’ (although this should not be taken for granted).

However, panel and working group arrangements are often coupled with ‘windows’ of wide
consultation, where instruments, such as questionnaires, workshops and public meetings,
are used at fixed points in the process.  The latter are seen as important, since they lend
regional  Foresight  activities  wide  visibility.  They  can  also  provide  a  check on domination
by any one particular group and they confer wide ownership of the outputs of an exercise.
Moreover,  the  wider  the  involvement  in  regional  Foresight,  the  wider  Foresight  process
benefits will be dispersed.

How participants are to be identified and convinced of the worth of the exercise is dealt with in
Question 4.1.

Q3.9 How long will it take to conduct a Foresight exercise in my region?

The duration of an exercise is typically between 6 months and 3 years.

The duration of a regional Foresight exercise will depend upon its focus, objectives, coverage
and the extent of participation.  But if our case studies are indicative, anything from 6 months
to 3  years  should be anticipated.    As  we  have  already  mentioned,  Foresight  can  become  a
‘continuous’ regional activity, something we discuss in Chapter 6.

Q3.10 How much will it cost?

Costs can vary. They will depend upon location of activities, scope of the exercise, number of
people in the project management team, organisation of events, selected approach, etc.

This is quite difficult to estimate at the moment, since very little financial data exists on regional
Foresight.  Moreover, if the costs of national Foresight exercises are to be considered as an
indicator, regional costs are likely to vary, depending on both the location of activities and their
scope.  Clearly, territorial prospective-type exercises, as seen in France, will be relatively more
expensive,  by  virtue  of  their  duration  and  scope.    However,  more  modest  approaches  are
possible and these will require fewer financial resources.

41

Financial costs are most likely to result from the running of a project management team, the
organisation  of  meetings  and  events,  travel  and  subsistence  of  at  least  some  of  the
participants, publicity material, extensive consultation processes (e.g. questionnaire surveys),
and other mainstream activities associated with an exercise.  You might also have to consider
paying some participants to give up their time for your Foresight exercise – this is uncommon,
but in some economically deprived regions, it might be necessary.

A good way to begin to estimate financial costs is to develop an outline of what a Foresight
exercise might look like in your region.  You can do this using this Guide.  It is a good idea to
keep  your  outline  flexible,  so  that  you  can  add  and  remove  different  activities,  thereby
increasing or reducing the costs.  Experimentation is recommended, and it is probably a good
idea to develop a range of options.

The question of who pays, i.e. sponsorship, is dealt with in Chapter 4 of this Guide.  However,
you should note that the financial burden of regional Foresight activities are typically borne by
a  wide  range  of  players,  not  least  by  the  participants  themselves,  who  usually  provide  their
thoughts and time for free.

42

CHAPTER 4 – BUILDING MOMENTUM

If your Foresight activities are to stand any chance of success, it will be necessary for you to
enrol  those  players  whom  you  consider  to  be  key  to  your  project.    This  chapter  therefore
highlights  some  of  the  strategies  and  opportunities  for  building  the  necessary  momentum
behind your Foresight activities.

Questions
Q4.1 : How might the various players

be identified?

Q4.2 : What sort of arguments should
be employed to convince
players to take part?
Q4.3 : How should I promote the

Foresight exercise more
widely?

Q4.4 : Who should sponsor the

regional Foresight exercise
and how long should this
commitment last?

Q4.5 : When should the various

players be consulted and how
should this be done?

Summary answer
The identity of players will depend upon the
orientation of your Foresight activities.  A
number of practical approaches can be
used to identify individual participants.
Arguments should emphasise the potential
benefits of establishing regional Foresight
activities.
Various tools can be used to promote
widespread appreciation of, and
participation in, regional Foresight activities
Sponsorship can come from the public or
private sector and often comes from both.
Sponsorship should be secured for the
envisaged duration of your Foresight
activities
Players should be consulted frequently
throughout the course of your activities, with
Foresight ‘naturally’ offering many
opportunities

Q4.1 How might the various players be identified?

The identity of players will depend upon the orientation of your Foresight activities.  A number of
practical approaches can be used to identify individual participants.

At  regional  level,  one  of  the  main  aims  of  Foresight  activities  tends  to  be  the  maximum
involvement of leading players from the local ‘system’.  This is because these players will
help  determine  the  final  outcome:  whether  Foresight  is  focused  upon  formal  production
activities,  or  on  the  activation  of  learning  processes  and  development  of  specific  skills.
Indeed,  the  correspondence  between  Foresight’s  objectives  and  local  needs  depends
heavily on the number of local players involved and their effective participation, as well as
their ability to intensify relationships of exchange within the local system and with regard
to external contexts.

The success of the Foresight programme – and thus its ability to attract sponsors, engage
local stakeholders, and put the results to effective use in regional development policies –
will depend on its ability to mobilise local sources of energy.  As the effectiveness of each
Foresight activity is strongly influenced by the number of local players involved and their
degree of participation, in order to avoid casual or misguided choices, the identification of

43

these players must follow an in-depth analysis of the local  system  and  refinement of  the
general objectives of your Foresight activity.

The  various  players  must  be  identified  according  to  the  focus  of  the  Foresight  activity,
which  will,  in  turn,  be  dependent  upon  the  objectives  of  the  initiative  and  the  type  of
region  in  which  it  is  to  be  conducted.    Thus,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  main
components  of  the  local  system  (see  Q.3.1),  i.e.:  local  institutions,  business  structure,
knowledge infrastructure, social capital, and the relative players involved.  For example, a
technological  focus  will  require  the  involvement  of  all  the  members  of  the  knowledge
infrastructure and, thus, all the players involved in the demand and supply of technology.
In  this  case,  the  participation  of  players  from  local  institutions,  the  production  structure,
and the social capital will be limited to their connection with the chosen approach.  On the
other hand, a focus on the competitiveness of enterprises in a specific sector will require
priority  involvement  of  the  production  sector  and,  especially,  entrepreneurial  and  trade
associations interested in improving the performance of the enterprise system.

General  economic  development  objectives  will  mainly  require  the  involvement  of  local
institutions  and,  especially,  those  responsible  for  the  most  important  local  development
planning  tools.    Objectives  focusing  on  a  specific  sector,  such  as  improvement  of  the
training  system,  will  involve  leading  public  decision-makers  at  both  local  and  national
level, as well as the public and private training supply systems, and players representing
the demand for professional skills.

The  most  representative  players  of  a  "localist"  region  characterised  by  widespread
presence of SME systems and a low incidence of associations, are those operating in the
production system and local institutions, as they are able to encourage greater interaction
between  public  decision-makers  and  the  production  system.    On  the  other  hand,  in  a
"globalised"  region,  the  players  involved  will  operate  outside  the  local  system,  i.e.
wherever decisions on which the future of regional development depend are made.

Three ways to recruit m em bers & participants 

Through personal  contacts 
using names known  to  those 
already invo lved  in the  project . 
You should ensure that key 
stakeho lders  are  represented 

Through stakeholders involvement
you ask  the  identified stakeho lders to
give you names

44

Through a formal process 
 1. Define the profile of  desired membership
(stakeho lder type, expertise) 
2. List together with other already invo lved people all
the names you can imagine 
3. Contact every person and ask two  questions :

•Would you be interested  ? 
•Do you have  two other names  ? This allow s
new unexpected names  to  come up

4. Match names & profile  membership and finalise list
5. Confirm to every person 

  
On  a  practical  level,  there  are  a  number  of  approaches  for  actually  identifying  individual
participants.    In  the  above  diagram,  these  have  been  divided  into  ‘personal  contacts’,
‘stakeholder  involvement’  and  ‘formal  processes’  (e.g.  co-nomination,  which  is  a  form  of
snowball sampling).  All three should be investigated for their suitability, and it is likely that
you will draw upon several approaches when identifying participants for your activities.

Q4.2 What sorts of arguments should be employed to convince players to

participate in regional Foresight?

Arguments should emphasise the potential benefits of establishing regional Foresight activities

Arguments should primarily focus upon the types of benefit to be gained from the setting
up of a Foresight activity.  Such benefits can be divided into three types:
• 

"Entry  Point"  benefits  connected  to  the  preparation  of  specific  programmes  for
submission to national and European financing.  In this case, both local institutions and
the  various  members  of  the  production  system,  the  technological  infrastructure,  the
training  system  and  the  social  system  will  have  specific  interests  in  defining  projects
and programmes to attract resources into the local system.

•  Benefits connected to long-term objectives, aimed at improving the competitiveness of
the regional system.  These objectives depend on the structural features of the region
in  question  and  may  address  general  economic  development,  improvement  of  sector
competitiveness,  greater  dissemination  of  technologies  in  production  and  social
systems, etc.  Obviously, the most suitable arguments for involving players will depend
on  the  objectives  identified  and  the  relative  benefits.    For  example,  in  the  case  of  a
Foresight activity aimed at improving the supply of services to citizens by encouraging
dissemination  of  information  technology,  the  arguments  to  be  used  with  public
authorities  should  revolve  around  an  improvement  in  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency
of  the  supply  of  the  services.  Citizens  on  the other  hand  should  be  made  aware  that
they will benefit from such improvements; arguments might focus upon the benefits of
promoting  greater  awareness  by  citizens  of  their  rights  and  the  opportunities  that
information technologies offer  (e.g.  remote  assistance,  remote  labour,  civic  networks,
etc.).

•  Benefits  connected  to  the  creation  or  strengthening  of  harmony  between  players  at
local  level.    In  this  case,  the  arguments,  especially  those  aimed  at  political  decision-
makers  and  entrepreneurial  and  trade  associations,  should  highlight  the  potential
impacts  of  Foresight  activity.  These  could  include  improved  interrelations,  cohesion
and generation of shared vision between local players.  This type of benefit also has a
direct  effect  on  the  advantages  to  be  drawn  from  the  Foresight  activity  by  individual
players.    For  example,  individual  enterprises  can  improve  their  knowledge  of  the
technological and economic scenarios in which they compete, while individual citizens
can increase their ability to use new technologies and thus improve their quality of life.
Finally,  trade  associations  can  consolidate  their  networks  of  relations,  increase  their
ability to listen to different points of view and thus improve the  quality  of  the  services
they offer.

45

Q4.3 How should I promote the Foresight exercise more widely?

Various tools can be used to promote widespread appreciation of, and participation in, regional
Foresight activities

Q4.2 has suggested that players can be convinced to support and participate in regional
Foresight  by  highlighting  the  potential  benefits  of  activity.    These  arguments  must  be
articulated and presented if they are to reach their intended audience.  Various tools can
be used to promote  widespread appreciation  of,  and  participation  in,  Foresight  activities,
including:
•  Publications and traditional communications tools (databases, newsletters, etc.) aimed
at  widespread  promotion  of  the  activities  to  be  carried  out  and,  thus,  identification  of
players interested in participating

•  A  remote  communications  Forum  designed  to  disseminate  information  and  promote

the activities carried out and completed by Foresight

• 

• 

Initiatives  aimed  at  encouraging  participation  at  territorial  level,  such  as  conferences,
workshops,  meetings  with  specific  groups  of  interlocutors  and  sectors  of  activity
(schools, research centres, associations, world of production, local organisations, etc.),
whose  aim 
to  encourage  participation  and  promote  a  more  active  and
knowledgeable involvement

is 

Illustration of cases of success at national and European level in regions characterised
by similar problems and objectives.

Q4.4 Who should sponsor a regional exercise, and for how long should such a

commitment be made?

Sponsorship can come from the public or private sector and often comes from both.  Sponsorship
should be secured for the envisaged duration of your Foresight activities

Sponsors can be from either the public or private and are sometimes from both:
•  The  most  common  public  sponsors  are  national,  regional  and  provincial  authorities,
some municipalities particularly interested and involved in the project, universities and
large  national  research  centres,  and  centres  of  innovation.    Furthermore,  special
contributions  often  come  from  organisations  and  institutes  whose  mission  is  the
promotion of development and innovation activities, i.e. foundations whose aims are to
analyse  and  study  the  development  of  socio-economic  scenarios.    Further  important
contributions  may  come  from  national  and  European  Community  public  programmes
set  up  to  finance  studies  and  analyses.    Such  contributions  are  often  disbursed
through  the  activities  of  the  EC’s  RTD  Framework  Programme  or  ERDF,  as  well  as
through national research programmes, such as those set up in many EU countries to
explicitly focus on Foresight activities.

•  Private sponsors may include large enterprises particularly interested in the results of
the  activity  and  promotion  of  the  territory  involved,  banks  and  other  financial
institutions,  entrepreneurial associations  (especially  in  the  case  of  Foresight  activities
specifically  oriented  towards  enterprise),  research  centres  and  centres  of  innovation
(such  as  science  and  technology  parks),  business  innovation  centres,  etc.    In  some
cases, contributions from private sponsors may be offered in the form of co-financing
of activities promoted by the European Structural Fund.

46

Generally  speaking,  both  public  and  private  sponsors  should  support  the  activity
throughout its entire duration.  Hence, the activity programme prepared at the initial stage
of  the  activity  will  need  to  give  clear  details  of  the  total  duration  of  the  activity,  the  ways
and  means  by  which  it  will  be  updated,  and  the  relative  financing  requirements.  The
activity  programme  should  also  include  the  consequent  hypothesis  of  identification  of
resources.  This programme must be as detailed as possible, highlighting  the number of
players involved, the events planned, the expected results, and the activities designed to
encourage participation at territorial level. The programme should also describe how final
results  will  be  disseminated  and  enhanced  (emphasizing  the  points  of  interest  to  each
category  of  sponsor).    However,  sufficient  flexibility  needs  to  be  built  into  the  activity
programme to take account of possible and unforeseen  developments  during  the  course
of your Foresight activities.

There  might  be  scope  or  even  necessity  for  sharing  of  costs  across  two  or  more
sponsoring  bodies,  e.g.  public-private  partnership.    However,  you  should  carefully
consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.  If Foresight is intended
to  become  a  continuous  activity  in  your  region,  it  is  certainly  possible  that  sponsorship
‘duties’  could  be  transferred  to  other  organisations  that  might  directly  benefit  from  the
Foresight exercise.

Finally, it should be kept in mind that the time costs of participants in working groups and
workshops are usually borne by their employers.  This ‘informal’ sponsorship should never
be taken for granted and will need to be acknowledged.

Q4.5 When should the various players be consulted and how will this be done?

Players should be frequently consulted throughout the course of your activities, with Foresight
‘naturally’ offering many opportunities

Whether the aim is to set up a process-based or a product-based Foresight activity, one of the
main  features  of  all  Foresight  activities  must  be  the  active  involvement  of  the  various
stakeholders  from  initiation  and  throughout  all  the  stages  of  the  activity.    Widespread  and
highly-valued  participation  by  various  types  of  local  players  should  not  be  occasional  and
episodic, but rather, must be considered a determining factor of the final result.  Going beyond
mere  consultancy,  Foresight  requires  the  participation  of  local  players  in  guiding  the
participants  right  from  the  identification  of  the  general  and  specific  objectives,  through  the
planning  of  the  activities  to  be  completed  and  the  methodologies  to  be  adopted,  to  the
management  of  operations  and  the  dissemination  of  results.    The  total  involvement  of  local
players is particularly important in enhancing the results of Foresight.  Local players can use
the  analysis  and  results  produced  by  Foresight  to  devise  develop  more  suitable  lines  of
development.  The  Foresight  experience  is  particularly  important  for  the  planning  of  regional
development policies, and also for the adoption of specific activities and actions within the local
system.

In  terms  of  ‘how’  to  ensure  wide  and  in  depth  consultation,  promotional  activities,  such  as
those  suggested  in  Q.4.3  offer  opportunities  to  elicit  views  on  the  conduct  of  regional
Foresight.    Moreover,  many  of  the  methods  used  in  Foresight  (see  Chapter  2  and  Annexe)
require  inputs  (e.g.  data,  visions,  etc.)  from  participants.    In  other  words,  Foresight  activities
‘naturally’  offer a number  of  opportunities  to  consult  stakeholders  –  it  is  up  to  you  to  decide
how to take full advantage of these.

47

CHAPTER 5 – STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION

Foresight activities can often be quite extensive undertakings requiring  the appointment  of  a
project management team, usually a steering committee, and often working groups of experts
and stakeholders.  These ‘structures’ will need to be organised and monitored, to ensure that
the objectives of your activities will be met.  This chapter highlights some of the issues you are
likely to face in structuring your Foresight activities, and suggests strategies and opportunities
in dealing with these.

Questions

Q5.1 : How should my regional

Foresight exercise be
organised?

Q5.2 : Who are the actors and what

are their tasks?

Q5.3 : Does my blueprint include

realistic milestones that will
allow the exercise to be
monitored?

Q5.4 : What sorts of inputs will the

exercise require?

Q5.5 : Which Foresight methods are
best for my exercise?

Summary answer

You will need to think carefully around a
variety of organisational dimensions, taking
into account the type of exercise you intend
to undertake
Many players can be involved, and their
roles and responsibilities require careful
definition
An autonomous Foresight project has to be
managed as such. Therefore project
management tools have to be developed

You should take care in collecting all the
existing information (passive) before
producing new material (active information).
There is a range of formal Foresight
methods available, with their
appropriateness dependent upon the
context and scope of the exercise you
envisage

Q5.1 How should my regional Foresight exercise be organised?

You will need to think carefully around a variety of organisational dimensions, taking into account
the type of exercise you intend to undertake

In organising your Foresight activities, there are three main dimensions that you will need
to consider in the first instance:
•  Formal structure of your project
•  Decision processes to be implemented
•  Resource procurement (see Q 4.4)

As the table shows, each of these dimensions is associated with a variety of activities, the
importance of which will depend upon the type of exercise you intend to undertake.

48

Formal Structure
Identify  stakeholders
Appoint a steering committee
Set up a management team
Recruit a champion
Recruit expertise
Decision Process
Define the management style
Prepare a blueprint (roadmap)
Assign tasks to each group
Resource Procurement
Identify a sponsor (see Q4.4)
Secure resources (see Q 4.4)
Identify existing inputs

Tightly centrally managed
autonomous project

Loosely centrally managed
autonomous project

Coordination of embedded activities

Key
Key
Key
Useful
Key

Key
Key
Key

Key
Key
Key

Key
Necessary
Key
Useful
Useful

Key
No real need
Just one person might be enough
No real need
No

Useful
Just coordination of group plans
No

Key
Key
Useful

No real need
No real need
Key

Useful
Key
Useful

Beginning  with  the  formal  structure,  whatever  the  type  of  Foresight  (see  Chapter  2),
identifying the stakeholders is a key step.  You will need to know  which  regional  players
are interested in, concerned by, and have stakes in your project.  A simple table of these
stakeholders,  including  their  position  &  expectations  vis-à-vis  your  proposed  Foresight
activities, is useful.

You will then need to propose a structure for the Foresight, to include the assignment of
roles  to  working  groups,  panels,  committees,  sponsoring  agencies,  etc.    Although  the
tasks  devoted  to  these  various  ‘agents’  are  tightly  linked  to  the  type  of  Foresight  you
envisage to implement (see Q5.2), there are some common structural characteristics.  For
example,  all  Foresight  projects  seem  to  have  some  sort  of  steering  committee  and
management  team.  Establishing  these  is  certainly  one  of  the  initial  steps  a  Foresight
promoter  should  take.    Many  activities  also  make  use  of  "expert"  groups  or  panels  that
focus on particular issues. The mechanics of setting up these groups need to be thought
through very carefully, since their membership will influence the whole exercise.

Moving  on  to  the  decision  process,  if  you are  engaged  in a  centrally  managed  project,
you  will  need  to  define  the  management  style  you  want  to  propose  to  the  groups.    For
example,  if  working  groups  are  to  be  established,  they  could  be  given  the  freedom  to
make  many  of  the  decisions  highlighted  in  this  Guide  for  themselves  (this  is  a  definite
possibility if the exercise is to be sponsored by more than one organisation). Alternatively,
a  central  project  team  or  steering  committee  might  dictate  the  terms  of  conduct  to  be
followed.  You should then assign tasks & responsibilities to the different groups you have
appointed.  Some of the most frequent tasks associated with Foresight are shown in the
table below.

Examples of some of the most frequent tasks in Foresight

Nominate group members
Manage process
Identify existing literature
Prepare reports on specific issues
Organise expert hearings

Employ Foresight methods, e.g. scenarios
Organise conferences on specific issues
Prepare synthesis
Prepare final report
Organise public debate on specific issues

49

The aim should be a fully developed blueprint, about which reasonable consensus should
be  obtained,  i.e. there  should be  consultation  not  only  on  the  scope  of  the  exercise,  but
also on its organisation and structure.  As we have seen in this Guide, there are various
options  for  doing  this.    It  is  probably  a  good  idea  to  investigate  these  options  when
discussing the scope of the exercise.  As we have already suggested, this blueprint should
be flexible and responsive, offering a number of different possible avenues that might be
followed.  It should cover the following:
•  Focus & scope related issues (see Chapter 3)
•  Project phases & milestones
•  Formal structure related issues
•  Decision process related issues

Q5.2 Who are the actors and what are their tasks?

Many players can be involved, and their roles and responsibilities require careful definition

Many players can be involved in a Foresight project, and most of them have already been
mentioned in this Guide.  These players can fulfil very diverse of roles, including:

•  Promoters
•  Stakeholders or user/target groups
•  Sponsors
•  Steering committee
•  Project team

•  Champions
•  Political support
•  Experts
•  Process experts
•  Monitoring group

The  level  of  involvement  of  the  various  actors  may  vary  depending  on  the  type  of
Foresight  and  its  focus.    However,  one  clear  distinction  has  to  be  made  between
autonomous  projects  and  embedded  Foresight.    If  you  are  engaged  in  an  embedded
Foresight  (see  Chapter  2),  the  actors  involved  will  be  linked  closely  to  the  project’s
management  and  the  participating  organisation(s).    Apart  from  the  promoter,  only
stakeholders  &  possibly  experts  will  be  involved.    In  autonomous  projects,  on  the  other
hand, wider involvement is more likely and will be linked to the scale of the exercise (see
table).

Key Actors 

Usually involved Actors 

Actors involved in large scale 
 projects only 

Embedded Foresight activities 

Promoters 
Stakeholders 

Foresight activities coordinator 
Experts 

not relevant 

Autonomous projects 
Promoters 
Stakeholders 
Steering Committee 
Project Team 
Champion 
Experts
Citizens 
Politicians 
Monitoring group
Process experts

50

 
Elaborating on a selection of these roles:
•  Promoters  are  the  people  (or  the  organisation)  supporting  the  idea  of  developing
some sort of Foresight activity in the region.  If you are reading this Guide you may
actually  be  tempted  to  become  a  promoter.    At  a  very  early  stage  of  the  project,
promoters  usually  try  to  identify  who  are  the  interested  players  in  the  region
(stakeholders)  and  what  could  be  the  first  outline  of  the  project  (objectives,  focus).
They would also start looking for sponsors.  Usually, promoters become highly involved
in the project team.

•  Stakeholders  are  those  people  and  organisations  that  have  an  interest  in  the
economic & social development of the region.  They feel they have something to say
about  a  process  such  as  the  one  you  are  about  to  launch.    Stakeholders  should
participate  in  the  Foresight  process.    They  can  become  sponsors,  provide  experts,
and/or act as champions.  The most important stakeholders should be appointed to a
steering  committee  (if  you  set  one  up).    Some  stakeholders,  however,  might  feel
threatened and will oppose the project.  For this reason, you (as the promoter) should
organise  consultations  with  most  stakeholders  when  drafting  your  project  profile.    In
this way, it can be used as a tool of enrolment that could engender future ownership of
Foresight processes and products.

•  A  Steering  Committee  will 

tend 

the
methodology, the work programme, validate the strategy and tools for communication,
and  help  to  promote  the  results.    It  will  define  /  adjust  the  assessment  criteria  and
review  the  deliverables.    It  will  monitor  the  quality  assurance  process  for  the  whole
project.    The  Steering  Committee  could  also  be  a  key  actor  to  raise  awareness,
mobilise experts, and to nominate them to various panels.

the  objectives, 

to  approve 

focus, 

the 

•  A  Project  Team  is  nearly  always  appointed  to  manage  the  project  on  a  daily  basis.

Usually its tasks are as follows:

(cid:1)  Lead the project on a daily basis
(cid:1)  Keep  regular  contacts  with  the  stakeholders  &  the  Steering  Committee  to

ensure that the project direction is maintained;
(cid:1)  Hold regular meetings with all WP Managers;
(cid:1)  Maintain accurate records of costs, resources and time scales for the project;
(cid:1)  Ensure  integration  of  Management  Reports  and  their  presentation  to  the

Steering Committee;

(cid:1)  Ensure that the project maintains its technical objectives
(cid:1)  Ensure  that  the  project  maintains  its  relevance  within  the  other  regional

innovation activities.

•  Securing high political support early on will be helpful to ensure that people perceive
the exercise as one that received serious consideration.  Indeed, you are likely to want
to target key people first, and if these can be won over, a sort of momentum, a “domino
effect”,  could  kick  in.    It  would  be  helpful  if  ‘champions’  or  ‘ambassadors’  could  be
enlisted early on to put forward the arguments, even though this entails certain risks as
well  (e.g.  it  might  lead  to  rivalry,  or  a  misalignment  of  expectations  of  the  proposed
Foresight exercise).

•  Expert work is highly significant in terms of:

(cid:1)  Gathering of relevant information and knowledge;
(cid:1)  Stimulation of new insights and creative views and strategies for the future, as

well as new networks;

51

(cid:1)  Diffusion of the Foresight process and results to much wider constituencies;
(cid:1)  The overall impact of Foresight in terms of follow-up action.

Apart from subject experts, Process Experts can also be mobilised.  Their role could be
to:

1.  Mentor/coach  the Steering Committee and the Project Manager

-  Provide ideas and external views
-  Highlight best practice in Europe
-  And, even, ...be an extra pair of hands.

2.  Undertake Specific Activities

-  Refine the work programme in the course of the Foresight project
-  Advise on research methodologies
-  Draft consultancy/expert project specifications, advise on appointments
-  Comment on key issues papers
-  Participate in "consensus building" activities
-  Contribute to Steering Committee meetings

The benefits you could expect from bringing in a process consultant are the following:

1.  Bring in some economies of scale

-  Past experience
-  Direct link to the Secretariat and best practice
-  Methodologies

2.  Contribute to the momentum of the project

-  Closely work together with the project manager
-  Consultancy experience

3.  External view

-  Easy questioning
-  Access to international experts
-  Synthesis and consensus building role

If  you  want  to  engage  citizens  from  the  wider  community,  it  might  be  necessary  to
distribute  leaflets  to  homes  and  work  places,  advertise  in  local  newspapers,  and/or  hold
‘road-shows’ in shopping centres, community centres, etc.

Q5.3 Does my blueprint include realistic milestones that will allow the exercise to

be monitored?

An autonomous Foresight project has to be managed as such.  Therefore project management tools
have to be developed.

Setting up simple tools that will allow you and the project team to monitor your Foresight
project is now considered good practice in project management.  Monitoring will help you
to  control  and  refocus  the  implementation  of  the  project.    It  consists  of  continuously
observing  and  ensuring  that  the  resources  foreseen  for  each  project  step  are  used
effectively as defined in the blueprint, that work schedules are respected and that outputs
actually materialise.  The issues involved in on-going monitoring are:

52

•  To observe the activities undertaken during the implementation of each project step in

order to compare them, on an on-going basis, to the targets set.

•  To continuously adapt the project plan to its environment.  The knowledge gained and
the active participation of stakeholders may alter the vision or process of your project.
As  Foresight  projects  are  not  expected  to  be  rigid,  this  is  the  right  mechanism  for
possible amendments.

The  monitoring  tool  should  allow  you  to  follow  project  implementation.    It  should  be
composed of a set of selected indicators designed to provide the relevant actors with on-
going  and  specific  data.    A  simple  way  (related  to  classical  PERT  project  management
tools)  of  implementing  a  monitoring  tool  is  to  set  up  and  complete  a  table  such  as  the
following:

PROJECT MAIN MILESTONES

Expected 
dead line

Probable 
target 
date

Corrective actions

Budget 
share

Budget actual 
consumption

Corrective actions

What

Who & 
When

What

Who & 
When

Engage stakeholders
Set-up the infrastructure
Choose focus and methods
Gather existing inputs
Produce new knowledge
Develop a shared vision
Produce final deliverables
Disseminate results
Monitor the activities
Incorporate the outputs in stakeholders decision processes

This  could be  complemented  by  a  second  tool  developed  to monitor  inputs  and  outputs.
The objective here is to quantify and qualify both the activities involved in and the result of
the  Foresight  project.    Typically,  they  consist  of  measuring  the  resources  (time,  money,
human  resources...)  put  into  the  system,  against  the  results  achieved  in  the  production
process  (new  innovation  related  programmes,  new  business  development,  incorporation
of  Foresight  results  in  stakeholders’  strategies,...).    However,  these  indicators  are  of
limited  value only.    High  input  indicators  don’t  necessarily  result  in  corresponding  output
indicators.  The complexity of  the  innovation  system  requires  the  shedding  of  some  light
on the processes triggered by any Foresight project.  The evaluation criteria should then
depart from classical input/output indicators such as R&D expenses or patents, and also
attempt to create measures of the intensity and quality of networking.  Therefore process
indicators should also be considered.  Evaluation is further considered in Chapter 6.

Q5.4 What sorts of inputs will the exercise require?

You should be careful to collect all existing information (passive) before producing new material
(active information)

Once  you  have  decided  on  the  objectives  of  your  Foresight  exercise,  you  might  consider
collecting information that could prove useful as inputs to your exercise.  We can speak here
about two different types of information: ‘passive’ and ‘active’.

53

‘Passive’ sources of information, which include any type of information or data that you can
collect on the current state of play in the region and any data that will allow you to construct a
retrospective analysis of the main trends (i.e. economic, social and demographic trends) that
have  characterised  your  region  in  the  past  years.    Other  types  of  ‘passive’  information  are
forecasts, scenarios, results of other Foresight exercises, opinion polls, sectoral and regional
data sets, market reports, benchmarking data (both quantitative and qualitative) which refer to,
or include, data on your region.

‘Active’ sources of information include mainly ‘resources’ that can be used during the course
of the exercise.  One of the most obvious inputs under this category is expertise and networks
that can be found in your region.  For instance, you might consider looking for:
•  The  presence  of  easy-to-access  expertise  in  Foresight  tools  and  methodology  in  the

region

•  The  presence  of  associative  and  representative  structures  of  different  sectors  of
society  –  networks,  consumer  /  citizen  groups,  business  associations,  credit  unions,
chambers  of  commerce,  leading  figures  in  the  community  (public,  business),
participants that can be involved in your exercise as ‘experts’ on your region, etc.

•  The presence of latent Foresight potential in the region that could be mobilised with
the  right  stimulus,  i.e.  the  sensitivity  of  the  various  play  ers  (businesses,  regional
authorities, research- technology-transfer and innovation-support) to Foresight thinking

If  some  of  these  resources  are  lacking  in  your  region,  you  could  consider  tapping  into
human/network  resources  situated  elsewhere  that,  nonetheless,  have  an  affinity  with  (or
knowledge  of)  the  region  (e.g.  a  regional  diaspora).    You  might  also  want  to  consider  the
minimum competencies needed to get started.  There are a couple of points to bear in mind
here.  First, it might be necessary to reassess the scope of your exercise if serious limitations
have been identified.  However, and this is the second point, Foresight itself should be seen as
one possible approach to building and strengthening some of the regional assets mentioned
above.  So the idea to conduct a Foresight exercise should not be abandoned on account of
weak networks, etc., since Foresight can help address some of these regional weaknesses.

Q5.5 Which Foresight methods are best for my exercise?

A wide range of formal Foresight methods is available, with their appropriateness dependent upon
the context and scope of the exercise you envisage

Any Foresight exercise involves a range of formalised methods, some of them relating to the
management  of  the  process,  others  to  the  securing  of  requisite  support  from  key
constituencies,  and  others  still  to  achieving  results  among  intended  “users”.    Chapter  2  has
introduced  considerations  to  bear  in mind  concerning  the methods  that  are  used  to  process
knowledge  and  opinions  about  future  issues,  whilst  an  Annexe  provides  a  detailed
presentation  of  the  most  common  methods  used  in  Foresight.    For  this  reason,  we  will  not
dwell  on  methods  here,  other  than  to  say  that  whilst  most  formal  methods  can  be  used  in
regional Foresight, it will be down to you to decide which approaches are the most appropriate
for the type of exercise you envisage.

54

CHAPTER 6 – OUTPUTS & OUTCOMES

Foresight activities can produce a wide variety of outputs, including sectoral analyses, critical
technology  lists,  priorities and  policy  recommendations,  scenarios,  Delphi  results  databases,
and less tangible ‘process’ benefits.  The challenge is to decide how Foresight outputs might
be presented to different user audiences, and who should be responsible for doing this?  All
too often, insufficient thought has been given to the action to be taken in the light of a Foresight
exercise.    In many  cases  this  has  led  to  implementation  gaps,  which  have  been  particularly
noticeable at the national level: recommendations have been prepared, but there has been no
mechanism  to  check  on  their  follow-up;  networks  that  were  working  productively  have  been
allowed to dissolve.  In addition to these points, we need to examine another neglected aspect
of  Foresight    -  the  evaluation  of  processes,  products,  and  outcomes.    Evaluation  is  an
important  method  of  ensuring  democratic  accountability,  and  it  also  provides  useful
opportunities for learning how better to conduct Foresight activities.  Finally, we present some
pointers  on  how  to  use  such  learning,  to  enable  regional  Foresight  to  become  an  ongoing,
continuous activity.

Questions
Q6.1 : What outputs and deliverables
should I expect from my
exercise?

Q6.2 : What are the likely challenges
in relating outputs to potential
users?

Q6.3 : Why should regional Foresight
activities be evaluated?

Q6.4 : How could I go about

evaluating my Foresight
activities?

Q6.5 : What sorts of benefits should I

be looking for from regional
Foresight?

Q6.6 : How can I manage players’

expectations for regional
Foresight?

Q6.7 : How could Foresight become a
continuous activity in my
region?

Summary answer

Each Foresight exercise will produce
tangible outputs in the form of reports, a
website, press articles and intangible
outputs like the development of new
networks.
Members of various user groups should be
involved in the Foresight process and they
can help defining the different types of
outcomes.
Evaluation allows you to assess if objectives
were met, to learn some lessons on how the
exercise was managed, and to define
follow-up activities.
Evaluation can take place in real-time or
‘post hoc’, with both approaches having
their pros and cons
Benefits can be identified at different points
in time and at different levels.  It will be
important to try to take account of
unexpected benefits, and you may also
want to focus on ‘success stories’ as
possible ‘demonstrators’
Expectations can be quite variable and
sometimes unrealistic, and strategies to
deal with this dissonance will have to be
developed
Some continuous Foresight activity is bound
to be of value in a region, and there are a
number of ways of making this a more likely
eventuality

Q6.1 What outputs and deliverables should I expect from my exercise?

55

Each Foresight exercise will produce tangible outputs in the form of reports, website, press articles
and intangible outputs like development of new networks.

Foresight exercises can produce formal & informal outputs:
•  Typical  formal  outputs  are  reports,  dissemination  activities  such  as  workshops,

newsletters, press articles, web sites, etc.

• 

Informal  outputs  are  more  difficult  to  grasp  although  you  know  by  now  that  they
represent  a  very  important  aspect  of  the  benefits.  Typical  informal  outputs  are  the
development of new networks within the region, the integration of Foresight results into
the strategy and the projects of regional organisations and companies. It could even be
the  evolution  of  decision  taking  processes  occurring  in  these  organisations  and
incorporating  Foresight  results;  for  instance  companies  might  start  developing
scenarios for their investment projects using Foresight results.

The following table proposes a synthesis of the types of outputs you might expect.

Formal outputs

Informal outputs

Formalisation

Dissemination

Report, book
workshops, newsletters, press 
articles, web sites

Networking

Strategic Process

Institutionalisation of networks

Formal incorporation of results 
within strategic processes

results & evaluation circulating 
within networks
Development of new networks or 
new links within existing ones
Informal incorporation of results 
within strategic processes

In order to be useful the outcomes generated by a Foresight exercise, should be followed up.
They  have  to  be  disseminated  widely,  and  it  would  be  extremely  helpful  to  check  whether
outputs were really used in a pragmatic and productive way. The evaluation of the outputs can
be done by checking if the targets set at the beginning of the exercise were actually met, and if
milestones were achieved as planned. In addition, the evaluation of the outcomes can be done
through  interviews  and/or  an  evaluation  questionnaire  with  the  final  users  of  the  Foresight
exercise. This  step  is particularly  important  if  Foresight  is  embedded  in  the  decision  making
process. The follow up of outputs allows you to outline pitfalls and to identify new requirements
that can be integrated in the subsequent phase of the Foresight process.

Q6.2 What are the likely challenges in relating outputs to potential users?

Members of various user groups should be involved in the Foresight process and they can help
defining the different types of outcomes.

In general, the outcomes of regional Foresight activities address different audiences. In starting
a Foresight exercise, you should be able to define who the interested groups are that might
benefit from the outputs. However, an output can be considered appropriate for one audience
but inappropriate for another. The different focus of a Foresight study may help in defining the
format  of  the  outputs  that  a  study  should  achieve  in  relation  to  the  possible  users.  A  useful
(and  essential)  thing  to  do  is  to  involve  members  of  various  user  groups  in  the  Foresight
process. The table below illustrates possible Foresight users on the basis of possible Foresight

56

focus. The members of the user groups can help to define the targeted outcomes that should
be foreseen for the various user groups.

Foresight
Focus
Possible
Foresight
users

Social

Technology

Policy makers
Consumer
Associations
Knowledge
infrastructure

Policy makers
Universities
Research
organizations
Industry

Business
Dynamics

Policy makers
Industry
Chamber of
Commerce
SMEs

Territorial vision

Policy makers
Territorial
Associations
Unions

For example, the outcomes of a Foresight exercise with a focus on business dynamics can be
useful for policy makers to define a sectoral policy strategy but also for SMEs to understand
what the main challenges ahead are and to redefine their business if necessary. The type (and
level) of information for the two different Foresight users should be formulated accordingly, and
if a report for policy makers is the main output, this should be translated for use by SME user
groups.

Q6.3 Why should regional Foresight activities be evaluated?

Evaluation allows you to assess whether objectives were met, to learn some lessons on how the
exercise was managed, and to define follow-up activities.

At the most fundamental level, evaluation is the process of seeing how far an activity has met
the objectives that were initially set out for it.  However, evaluation is also employed so that we
may see whether there have been additional costs and benefits, and lessons to be learnt, from
the activity and the way it was undertaken.  For a long time, policies were only evaluated in the
sense that those responsible for them would pronounce - usually on the basis of impressions,
political  doctrine,  or  very  partial  data  -  how  far  they  had  been  a  success.    More  recently,  a
whole  discipline  of  “evaluation  studies”  has  arisen,  seeking  to  render  the  process  more
transparent  and  open  to  debate,  and  better  founded  on  systematic  evidence.    While  the
methods  identified  in  this  body  of  work  could  be  employed  by  many  people,  there  is  wide
agreement that evaluations are best carried out by an independent third party: the results are
more likely to be seen as unbiased, and those providing information to the evaluators are also
likely to be less inhibited.  Related to this, there is usually some effort to provide anonymity to
informants, so that criticisms can be voiced openly, and favourable comments are not seen as
just  an  effort  to  get  further  funds,  etc.,  but  it  is  hard  to  ensure  complete  anonymity  in  some
cases.

Evaluations address the questions: Were the objectives of the activity met?  Could they have
been  met  more  effectively  and  efficiently  (value-for-money,  management  and  organisational
fit).  They may also go on to ask: Were they the right objectives (were the objectives too broad
or narrow, too ambitious or not sufficiently so, well-grounded in an understanding of the topics
at hand…).  Some of the rationales for the evaluation of regional Foresight activities are shown
in the box below.

57

Evaluation will help you discover whether or how far the exercise has achieved its desired
outcomes.  This may be important in justifying it in terms of “value for money”.

It  is  also  a  good  way  of  systematically  collating  information  on  the  achievements  of  the
activity,  which  can  be  used  for  other  purposes  (dissemination,  planning  follow-ups,  etc.)
This information is often found very useful by those participating in the activity, as well as by
those managing it – and evaluations provide a good opportunity for participants to express
their views about what worked and what did not.

Evaluations  can  lead  to  the  learning  of  several  sorts  of  lessons.    A  first  set  of  lessons
concerns  the  appropriateness  of  the  original  objectives,  and  the  degree  to  which  these
were  adequately  formulated  and  communicated  to  those  involved  (a  frequent  problem  in
Foresight implementation).

A second set of lessons concerns the management of the exercise (whether the activities
might  have  been  performed  more  efficiently  and  effectively  with  a  different  organisational
structure, etc.)

A third set of lessons illuminates the barriers to Foresight within the region, and the ways in
which these may be tackled.

These  lessons  can  inform  follow-up  activities,  and  the  design  of  future  exercises.    As  a
result of this, evaluations prove helpful in identifying the direction for future activity and for
its organisation, for reflecting upon the objectives of the activity and the broader philosophy
behind  it  (in  terms  of  how  far  it  is  a  top-down  or  bottom-up  product,  for  example,  or  a
process or capability-oriented activity).

Q6.4 How could I go about evaluating my Foresight activities?

Evaluation can take place in real-time or ‘post hoc’, with both approaches having their pros and
cons.

The  evaluation  of  Foresight  has  to  be  designed  carefully  –  not  too  obtrusive  as  to  disrupt
operations  and  annoy  stakeholders;  not  too  cursory  as  to  fail  to  be  useful  to  the  majority  of
these stakeholders; and sufficiently independent to provide a credible and legitimate overview
of the activity.  Evaluation can take place in “real-time”, while the activity is underway, or “post
hoc”, when it is completed.

Real-time evaluation can provide feedback to those responsible for an activity, so that they are
able  to  identify  shortcomings  more  rapidly  and  address  problems.    However,  it  should  be
differentiated  from  the  routine  monitoring  of  an  activity.    The  latter  is  simply  a  management
task of making sure that tasks are being performed on time, reports received when expected
and by the relevant people, money is being spent as it was allocated, etc.  Evaluation, on the
other hand, is oriented towards examining whether the objectives that such tasks are meant to
accomplish  are  being  fulfilled.    But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ultimate  objectives
Foresight is aimed at are mostly long-term ones, and real-time evaluation will be best suited to
identifying unfolding processes (a lot of the processes of interaction between people are hard
to  pick  up  after  the  event),  and  perhaps  early  impacts.    These  impacts  are  most  likely  to
revolve around process issues, e.g. networking, increased future-orientation of players, etc.

Most evaluations are post hoc, working with hindsight.  These are often conducted to provide
a “closure” to the activity, a drawing up of a final balance sheet.  Even this is problematic when
the ultimate objectives involve effecting very long-term change.  Conducting an evaluation of
this sort, say 2-3 years after the exercise has been initiated, can examine follow-up activities,

58

e.g.  the  enactment  of  new  policies  and  programmes,  the  establishment  of  business  joint
ventures,  and  even  the  emergence  of  social  and  technological  innovations.    There  may  be
some scope for evaluating such process-type impacts and capability development issues, as
an  indicator  of  the  extent  to  which  Foresight  has  become  ‘embedded’  in  the  region.    The
problem  with  attempting  such  evaluations  is  one  of  ‘weak  signals’,  since  developments  and
outcomes  after  some  time  will  have  been  dependent  upon  a  great  number  of  factors,  with
Foresight  being  just  one  of  them.    Moreover,  it  may  be  that  the  part  played  by  a  Foresight
exercise  will  remain  unacknowledged,  even  if  it  has  actually  been  catalytic.    While  this  is
problematic  for  accountability,  Foresight  is  at  its  most  effective  when  meshed  with  other
activities, so a combination of influences is only to be expected.

Evaluations focus on  relating achievements to objectives, and  a  wide  range of data may  be
relevant.    Some  of  this  may  be  “by-product”  data  –  records  of  meeting  attendance,  press
reports, publication lists, etc.  But often it will be necessary to generate new data – often by
surveying people participating in or potentially being influenced by the activity.

Q6.5 What sorts of benefits should I be looking for from regional Foresight?

Benefits can be identified at different points in time and at different levels.  It will be important to try
to take account of unexpected benefits, and you may also want to focus on ‘success stories’ as
possible ‘demonstrators’.

Many of the benefits associated with Foresight will be identified in the course of evaluation as
described above.  But there are several issues that go beyond the basic remit of evaluation:
•  There  may  be  benefits  of  the  activity  that  were  not  originally  anticipated,  but  which
nevertheless  deserve  to  be  identified  and  built  upon.    Thus,  building  broad  Foresight
capabilities was rarely an explicit part of the goals of many early Foresight exercises,
and yet it has proved to be a welcome by-product of some of them at least.

• 

It  is  often  helpful  to  be  able  to  identify  “success  stories”,  which  can  serve  as
demonstrators to inspire other parties to undertake or act upon Foresight activities, and
which can be useful benchmarking aids in the identification and generalisation of good
practice.

The most straightforward way of identifying benefits, of course, is to ask the people involved in
the  activity  to  report  on  these  systematically.    This  systematic  approach  has  to  be  open
enough  to  allow  for  unexpected  benefits  to  be  captured,  and  will  need  to  be  employed  at
several periods (if not continually), so as to capture immediate and longer-term benefits, and
changing appraisals of how important these have proved to be.  Furthermore, benefits may be
experienced  at  different  levels  –  in  terms  of  the  effectiveness  and  careers  of  individuals,  in
terms  of  the  organisational  capabilities  of  participating  agencies  and  firms,  in  terms  of
improvements in communication networks and social interaction more generally.  Thus survey
questions need to be framed so as to capture different types of benefits.

If the interest is directed especially at success stories, it may be worth putting more effort into
following up certain cases which are believed to have been particularly successful, rather than
trying to gain an equivalent depth of information all across the board.  Examples of the sorts of
data on benefits that might be generated include:
•  Are  there  improved  linkages  in  the  sense  of  participants  (and  especially  the
stakeholders  who  might  be  more  peripheral  to  existing  networks,  such  as  SMEs)
knowing about and being known by relevant organisations and experts, being involved

59

in  meetings  and  discussion  groups,  having  access  to  sources  of  knowledge  and
assistance  when  faced  with  problems  and  opportunities?    Such  benefits  can  be
assessed by asking participants about their experiences and how they have changed,
or by examining data on meetings, websites, help lines, etc.

•  Have  new  activities  or  initiatives  been  undertaken,  have  priorities  been  shifted,  as  a
result of Foresight?  We can see what the sponsors of these activities claim, and what
the  other  people  involved  in  collaboration  or  implementation  believe  to  be  the  case,
how far reference is made to Foresight in supporting documents, etc.

• 

Is there evidence of the creation of a “Foresight culture”, with longer-term perspectives
being taken seriously by  a  wider  spectrum  of  actors?    Have  other bodies  undertaken
Foresight activities of their own, and is there evidence of the results of Foresight being
discussed within user organisations?

Q6.6 How can I manage players’ expectations of regional Foresight?

Expectations can be quite variable and sometimes unrealistic, and strategies to deal with this
dissonance will have to be developed.

A  Foresight  exercise  in  a  region  may  face  problems  in  having  to  deal  with  different  or
unrealistic  expectations.    The  outcomes  desired  from  Foresight  may  vary  across  actors  –
some may hope for a focus on urban problems, others on particular sectors of the economy or
on certain social groups, and so on.  Some expectations as to outcomes can be unrealistic, in
that they will be informed by too optimistic a view as to how great an emphasis will be placed
on  certain  issues,  how  far  decision-makers  are  liable  to  heed  the  inputs  from  Foresight  in
dealing with such issues, and how rapidly to expect change.

For these reasons, it is helpful to have a clear notion of the sorts of benefit that can reasonably
be  expected.  This  needs  to  be  conveyed  as  part  of  the  Foresight  activity,  and  needs  to  be
communicated  by  capturing  relevant  information,  and  putting  it  into  a  form  suitable  for
stakeholders  to  examine.    As  the  Foresight  activity  proceeds,  and  better  understanding  is
gained  as  to  what  it  can  and  cannot  hope  to  accomplish,  there  may  need  to  be  some
modification of these expectations, too.

Q6.7 How could Foresight become a continuous activity in my region?

Some continuous Foresight activity is bound to be of value in a region, and there are a number of
ways of making this a more likely eventuality.

A single Foresight exercise may inform decisions for a period of time – not just the particular
policy need that led to the initiation of an exercise, but a succession of subsequent activities,
often in marginally related areas.  But after a while, there is every chance that the reports will
be seen as old and of decreasing relevance; the personal links forged in networks will  have
decayed as people move around within and across organisations; even the skills acquired for
doing Foresight may grow rusty through disuse.  And, in any case, it is likely that other topics
will  arise  which  require  longer-term  perspectives  being  brought  to  bear,  and  some  new
Foresight will be necessary.

The  upshot  of  this  is  that  some  continuous  Foresight  activity  is  bound  to  be  of  value  in  a
region.  This does not necessarily mean that a full-blown Foresight programme should be run
on a permanent basis – though this is not inconceivable, as long as there is plenty of room built

60

into  it  for  renewal  and  reorganisation  to  deal  with  changing  circumstances.    It  may  be
something far more modest, such as setting up a Foresight Unit with  the  task of  conducting
small-scale Foresight exercises or training activities with particular agencies or sets of users on
a continual basis.  Such a Unit could also play a valuable role in organising regular meetings to
maintain  and  reinvigorate the  networks  set  up  in the  course  of  an  original  Foresight  activity,
and in providing information and analysis that can help update the reports and considerations
that such networks may have generated.

the  region. 

In many ways, the critical task is one of fostering a “Foresight culture”, so that all sorts of social
and  economic  organisations  recognise  the  relevance  of  longer-term  perspectives,  and  can
engage in Foresight as and when it is needed.  This amounts to embedding Foresight and the
this
development  of  relevant  capabilities  deeply  within 
“decentralisation” of Foresight, it may still be valuable to have ongoing centralised activities of
one sort or another.  For example, while a major regional Foresight exercise can rarely, if ever,
be sustained for long periods of time, such an exercise could be envisaged as taking place say
every 3-5 years or even less frequently if there is a rolling programme of Foresight, targeting
different  sectors  and/or  problems  at  different  times.    The  political  problem  here  is  assigning
responsibility for these centralised but wide-ranging activities, and sustaining this arrangement
through the inevitable changes in administration, governing parties, political fashions, etc.  The
chances  of  maintaining  activities  in  the  face  of  such  changes  are  much  greater  if  there  are
autonomous  sources  of  Foresight  expertise.    Repositories  of  experience,  for  example,  in
Universities, trade associations, consultancies, and associations of voluntary groups may also
region
be  developed  with  a  view 

to  maintaining  Foresight  capabilities 

  To  achieve 

the 

in 

61

62

PART III – Regional Foresight case descriptions
PART III – Regional Foresight case descriptions
PART III – Regional Foresight case descriptions
PART III – Regional Foresight case descriptions

CHAPTER 7 – CATALONIA 2010 (Spain)

Foresight for developing long-term regional vision and deepening the regional identity.

This landmark study was completed a decade ago at the time when Foresight methods were
just beginning to take hold at national level, is (along with the first Limousin study in 1987) one
of the first "global" regional prospective exercise to be carried out in Europe.  In many respects
it  constitutes  a  highly  relevant  benchmark  and  reference  for  the  present  rising  interest  and
activity in regional Foresight.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
Catalonia  is  an  autonomous  Community  within  Spain  with  a  population  of  six  million  people
(Barcelona 1.6 million). It covers an area of 31,930 square kilometres.  The primary impulse for
this major regional Foresight exercise was the need and desire felt by the Catalonian Regional
Government  or  Generalitat,  in  the  late  1980s  to  anticipate  future  developments  and  to
generate  a  wide-ranging  debate  on  the  long-term  positioning  of  Catalonia  as  a  key
Mediterranean  region.  It  regarded  both:  the  internal  view  of  what  constitutes  Catalonia  for
Catalonians, and the outwardly projected image and interconnections  with  the  rest  of  Spain,
Europe, and especially  with  the  Maghreb  on  the  South-western  shore  of  the  Mediterranean.
This led to the establishment of the Institut Català d’Estudis  Mediterranis  (ICEM)  now  called
the Institut Català de la Mediterrània (ICM - Catalan Institute of the Mediterranean) by the
Generalitat  in  1989.  During  the  three  years  to  1992  Catalonia  2010  became  the  defining
project for the ICM.

SSCCOOPPEE
The  study  was  very  broad  covering  all  aspects  of  Catalonian  society  -  culture,  politics,
economics, demographics, spatial planning, etc. One of the intermediate outputs showing the
wide  scope  was  the  decomposition  of  the  Catalan  'system'  into  the  six  major  sub-systems
shown in the table, each driven by a number of key factors (listed in the second column).

The scope of the study was also particularly marked by a strong outward orientation via explicit
consideration  of  external  interdependencies  with  other  European  regions  and  the  Maghreb.
Furthermore, it  stressed the recognition of the rise of a trans-national space for co-operation in
which regional authorities increasingly collaborate.

63

Morphology of the Catalan System

Sub-systems

1. Demographic evolution

2. Territorial planning: land-use, infrastructure
& communications

3. The productive system

4. The labour market & social protection

5. The dynamics of Catalan society

6. The geopolitical & institutional framework

Key factors

Fertility
Longevity
Migratory balance
Natural resources
Spatial distribution of population & activities
Internal transport
External transport
Telecommunications
Dynamics of world growth
Catalan economic competitiveness
The evolution of the dependency ratio
The financial balance of the social protection
system
Catalan identity
Ways of life in Catalonia
Catalan trends & desires
European perspectives
Mediterranean perspectives
The  Spanish  model  of  'autonomy'  in  the
international dynamics

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
Direct  sponsorship  by  the  Presidency  of  the  Generalitat,  gave  the  project  a  high  degree  of
visibility and buy-in by the many stakeholder groups with a vested interest in the project - both
within  the  political and  policy  making  institutions  and  the  wider economy  and  society.  At  the
outset, meetings were held with each department of  the  regional  government  to  present  the
study and to identify relevant future-oriented work and strategic plans in all areas covered. At
this stage also, a selection of experts covering the different areas was made in order to draw-
up the first list of key variables for the study. Stakeholder interest, input and involvement in the
project during the three-year implementation phase took different forms. Firstly, there were 13
lead-experts  involved  in  the  working  group  and  secondly,  a  broader  group  of  42  experts
directly  involved  in  the  preparing  of  the  report  and  detailed  background  documentation  (e.g.
commissioned studies, etc.). Finally, there was the group of over 200 experts involved in sub-
system panel discussions Delphi and other types of surveys, and workshop seminars aimed at
the detailed elaboration of themes and issues underpinning the study.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
The  study  was  co-ordinated  by  ICM  (Maria  Àngeles  Roque)  and  Futuribles  International
(Hugues de Jouvenel) and had a lead working group of 13 people.  The study was conducted
in  four  main  phases.  The  first  phase  consisted  of  a  systems  analysis  of  Catalonia  looking
ahead  20  years  to  2010  to  identify  the  main  variables  impacting  on  the  development  of  the
region. The second stage consisted of studying and analysing the morphology of the Catalan
system  projected  ahead  20  years.  This  resulted  in  the  identification  of  the  six  sub-systems
listed  in  the  table  above,  which  then  defined  the  main  architectural  elements  for  the
subsequent  parts  of  the  study.  The  third  phase  consisted  of  a  detailed  analysis  plus  the
elaboration  of  a  series  of  hypotheses  and  associated  micro-scenarios  for  each  of  the  sub-

64

systems.  The  fourth  phase  was  devoted  to  the  elaboration  of  global  scenarios.  The  main
working group took charge of this final global scenario definition phase.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
The study used a variety of methodologies:
• 

In  the  initial  systems-analysis  phase,  a  cross-impact  matrix  was  developed  involving
45  different  variables  requiring  the  working  group  to  provide  a  response  to  1980
questions  (i.e.  the  cause/  effect  relationship  between  the  45  variables  scored  with  a
coefficient of 1 (weak), 2 (medium) or 3 (strong). The so-called MICMAC3 method was
used to identify the variables of highest impact and highest dependence.

• 

• 

In working out the morphology of the system leading to the identification of the six sub-
systems,  trend  analyses  were  carried  out  on  the  variables  with  due  attention  paid  to
possible  break-points  or  inflection-points  either  brought  on  by  events  or  conscious
actions.  This  was  associated  with  an  analysis  of  the  strategies  of  the  different  actors
involved - including possible alliances, conflicts and their means available for action.

In  the  longest  and  most  difficult  part  of  the  study  -  analysing  and  projecting  the  sub-
system dynamics - different methods were used. As in the previous phase many desk-
research  type  studies  were  undertaken,  and  a  large  number  of  surveys  with  different
sectors,  specialists  and  actors  representing  different  components  of  Catalan  society.
The  forward-looking  survey  used  a  single-round  Delphi,  while  more  opinion-poll  type
surveys  were  used  also  for  the  collection  of  information  on  aspects  such  as  Catalan
values in the 1990s.

•  Of  all  the  background  publications  and  reports  produced  specifically  for  the  study,  a
sample of 41 is included in the bibliography to the final report, indicated with an *.
•  The  final  scenario  building  part,  worked  from  the  sub-system  partial  scenarios  to  the
global ones with the aim of revealing an overall synthesis of the dominant trends and
the main risks of discontinuity, plus the challenges these entail and the policies which
would be possible to put in place over the long term. Five global scenarios were drawn
up covering  three different perspectives  -  trend  scenarios,  contrasted  scenarios  (best
case/ worst case) and normative scenarios - i.e. the desirable future:

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

Transition trend scenario to 2000 - catching the train on the run
Favourable trend scenario to 2010 - Catalonia, the motor of Europe
Pessimistic breakdown scenario to 2010 - a marginalised Catalonia
Alternative discontinuous break scenario to 2010 - a new development strategy
Involuted discontinuous break scenario to 2010 - an introspective Catalonia

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The principal  tangible  output  was  the  publication  of  the  final  report  of  the  main  findings  and
synthesising the work carried out over the three years of the study. The report was edited in
Catalan, Spanish and French. In intangible terms, the impact was very high indeed. The report
and the findings of the study became virtually obligatory reading for all political and institutional
actors  in  Catalonia  -  not  just  within  the  regional  government,  but  also  at  the  level  of  city
councils  and  municipal  authorities  all  over  Catalonia,  and  in  the  private  sector.  It  became  a

3 MICMAC means "cross-impact matrix - multiplication applied to classification" - see Godet (1993) From anticipation
to action - A handbook of strategic prospective, UNESCO Publishing

65

                                                
highly  used  reference  in all  aspects of political  and policy  discussions, and  in a  very  explicit
way, introduced a whole new vocabulary and set of concepts into the political debate. A series
of  24  debate  and  diffusion  seminars  took  place  all  over  Catalonia  tailoring  each  time  the
content and delivery to the geographical location, the situation in which the seminar took place
and to the profile of the participants involved, for example:
• 

In the EADA (Economy Circle) on "the economic future and business competitiveness
scenarios"

In the College of Solicitors on "professional collectivities"

In the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology on "prospective methodologies"

• 
• 
•  With the leaders of political parties on "political institution building"
•  With the Faculty of Education Science on "migration and multiculturalism"
•  With  the  Culture  Departments  of  both  the  Regional  Government  and  Barcelona  City

Council on "identity and culture".

A summer school was also organised at the Menéndez Pelayo International University entitled
"Mediterranean Foresight. Catalonia 2010". The study received a lot of press coverage in the
form of synthetic articles, opinion articles and, in some newspapers, special reports analysing
the  contents  of  the  global  scenarios.  The  study  has  been  a  highly  cited  reference  in
subsequent studies and works on Catalonia, such  as for example,  the  symposia  "Catalunya
demà"  organised  by  the  regional  government  from  1997  to  1998  to  debate  the  future  of
Catalonia.

No  specific  evaluation  was  carried  out.  In  terms  of  follow-up  and  renewal,  a  more  recent
publication "L'espai mediterrani llati" (the Latin Mediterranean space, 1999) includes a chapter
that  proposes  a  revision  of  the  parameters  proposed  in  the  original  global  scenarios.  The
chapter points out that some of the scenario elements have been realised, some trends have
been  broken  giving  rise  to  new  situations  and  parameters  and  some  challenges  remain
unresolved. A new normative trend scenario is proposed.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY
Hugues  de  Jouvenel  i  Maria-Àngels  Roque  (dirs.)  Catalunya  a  l'horitzó  2010.  Prospectiva
mediterrània,  Barcelona:  Enciclopèdia  Catalana,  1993  (Catalan  edition);  Cataluña  en  el
horizonte  2010.  Prospectiva  mediterránea  Madrid:  Ediciones  de  la  Revista  Política  Exterior,
1994 (Spanish edition); Catalogne à l'horizon 2010  París: Economica, 1994 (French edition)

Maria-Àngels Roque (dir.). L'espai mediterrani llatí, Barcelona: Proa, 1999 (Catalan edition); El
(Spanish  edition);  L'espace
espacio  mediterráneo 
méditerranéen latin. La Tour d'Aigues: éditions de l'Aube, 2001 (French edition).

latino,  Barcelona: 

Icaria,  1999 

CCOONNTTAACCTTSS  FFOORR  FFUURRTTHHEERR  IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN
Institut Català de la Mediterrània d'Estudis i Cooperació (ICM)
C/ Girona, 20-22, 5a planta  08010 Barcelona, Spain
Tel. +34 93 244 98 50 Fax +34 93 247 01 65
e-mail: picm0000@correu.gencat.es; URL: http://www.gencat.es/icm/amenus.htm
(Contacts: Maria Àngels Roque, Jordi Padilla Rovira - Departament d'Estudis)

66

CHAPTER 8 – UUSIMAA (Finland)

Developing and networking embedded regional foresight capability.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
The  Uusimaa  Employment  and  Economic  Development  Centre  (EEDC)  is  a  regional
organisation  of  the  State  in  the  Helsinki  metropolitan  area.  The  EEDCs,  of  which  there  are
fifteen altogether in Finland, were established in 1997 to support the development of business
activity and employment at regional level. Two years earlier an extensive Foresight operation
within the framework of the Objective 4 Programme of the European Social Fund (ESF) was
set  in  motion  in  Finland.    The  operation  was  co-ordinated  by  the  Ministries  of  Labour  and
Education.  The Ministry  of  Labour  placed particular  priority  on  the  development of foresight
within the EEDCs and set up a support project for this.  Project funding enabled the centres to
employ one full-time person for half a year to initiate Foresight activity. The activity was able to
continue after this period within the framework of the ESF programme, although a Foresight
project  clearly  concerning  a  specific  branch  or  subject  had  to  be  formulated  and  funding
applied for on this basis.

Foresight  activity  within  the  framework  described  above  has  been  initiated  to  a  greater  or
lesser extent in several EEDCs. The Uusimaa EEDC is very strongly committed to Foresight.
When the activity of the nation-wide support project finishes at the end of 2001, the Uusimaa
EEDC will continue activity by allocating a proportion of the ESF funds within its own discretion
to Foresight. This decision concerns the entire new EU programme period i.e. it will apply until
the end of 2006.

Four  factors  have  had  a  major  impact  on  the  shaping  of  Foresight  activity  in  the  Uusimaa
EEDC:
•  General practice regarding Foresight in Finland
•  Regional organisations' previous experiences of planning and forecasting
•  Nature of the Foresight information needed, based on the tasks of the EEDCs
•  Special position of the Uusimaa region as a national centre

Unlike  other  European  countries,  specific,  extensive  Foresight  exercises  have  not  been
implemented in Finland. Instead, Foresight and Foresight-type activity can be found distributed
across many organisations, both in the public and private sectors, e.g. in Ministries, research
institutes, educational institutes, branch-specific organisations, etc. In forecasting  work,  there
are also often some Foresight activities included, for instance, in the form of scenario writing.
Similarly, in the anticipation of qualification requirements, which is traditionally based either on
large-scale  quantitative 
longer-term
Foresight studies have recently been gaining ground.

forecasts  or  barometric  corporate  questionnaires, 

More  widely,  Finnish  regional  organisations  have  a  long  tradition  of  Foresight-type  work
undertaken  in  connection  with forecasting  and planning. Already  by  the 1970s,  for  example,
scenario projects and Delphi studies had been carried out in the Helsinki region through the
co-operation  of  the  State  regional  organisations  and  the  municipalities.  In  recent  years,
Foresight  has  achieved  a  new  significance  with  the  turbulent  and  uncertain  economic

67

development.  The need for flexible positioning  that focuses on understanding  and  “making”
the future has grown, and Foresight is seen as responding to this need better than forecasts
and the detailed plans that emerge from these.

The  field  of  tasks  for  the  EEDCs  is  very  broad  in  scope.  It  includes  the  development  of
technology and  regional  innovation activity,  the  development of business activity,  particularly
for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs),  activity  that  increases  and  maintains
employment,  and  the  development  of  employees'  qualifications.  Practically,  this  amounts  to
funding  for  enterprises,  organisation  of  assistance  from  consultants,  and  the  organisation  of
further  training  for  the  unemployed  as  well  as  for  those  in  work.  The  EEDCs  carry  out  at
regional level the tasks that come within the areas of responsibility of the Ministry of Trade and
Industry, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Almost  one  third  of  Finnish  business  is  concentrated  within  the  Helsinki  region  and  the
business  carried  out  in  the  area  is  very  often  of  national  importance.  For  this  reason,  the
Uusimaa EEDC cannot restrict itself to a purely regional standpoint in its Foresight activities. A
constant  interaction  with  organisations  undertaking  national  Foresight  as  well  as  networking
with regional organisations in different parts of the country has been an important objective for
EEDC Foresight.

SSCCOOPPEE
The following starting points have been adopted for Foresight in the Uusimaa EEDC:
•  Linking of various traditions and approaches regarding Foresight
•  A  broad  scope,  in  which  the  projects  carried  out  by  the  EEDC  itself,  as  well  as  the

Foresight information obtainable through networking, are specified

•  Continuity of activity

The  Uusimaa  EEDC  combines  three  different  approaches  related  to  acquiring  futures
information:  (1)  technology  Foresight;  (2)  anticipation  of  qualification  requirements;  and  (3)
forecasting. Of these three, technology Foresight constitutes the basic framework. The aim in
EEDC  Foresight  is  both  to  collect  industry-based  information  and  to  examine  more  general
social  questions  such  as  the  development  of  the  Information  Society,  the  ageing  of  the
population  and  marginalisation  problems  linked  with  long-term  unemployment.  This  broad
scope,  coupled  with  the  limited  resources  available,  makes  it  important  to  consider  carefully
which Foresight projects the EEDC will itself implement and for which matters it can resort to
information available from others. The solution adopted is currently as follows:
•  For  quantitative  forecasts,  the  EEDC  will  rely  almost  entirely  on  data  produced  by

Ministries and research institutes

•  The EEDC defines the most important branches and social questions for its region and

its own Foresight exercises are focused upon these

•  Concerning  other  branches  and  subjects,  Foresight 

information  produced  by
networking partners is compiled and worked up to a form suitable for the EEDC's own
needs

The nation-wide support project for EEDC Foresight has compiled the most important regional
forecasts describing economic, employment and population growth as the “TOP 15” indicators,

68

available through the Internet. At this stage, the forecasts mainly extend to 2010. Concerning
the results of Foresight projects, there is no summary information, by branch for example. The
support  project  has,  however,  set  up  an  Internet  portal  where  information  on  ongoing  and
completed projects is available, and where links to original material can be found.

The Uusimaa EEDC has strived for a more systematic division of labour in Foresight between
regions. This means that each region would specialise in its own characteristic branches and
questions and, by networking with other regions, would produce information that would also be
applicable on the national scale. In this way (and despite scarce resources), it is intended that
regional Foresight work will be of benefit to many organisations, in addition to the interests of
the region concerned. Based on this principle, the Uusimaa EEDC has chosen two subjects in
which it has specialised at this stage and for which it has done Foresight work during the last
two years:
•  Future prospects for knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS)
•  Future employment possibilities in the voluntary sector

The themes chosen are based on the special nature of Uusimaa, which is on the one  hand
characterised  by  the  fastest  growth  in  the  country,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  long-term
unemployment  and  the  related  marginalisation  risks.  KIBS  are  the  fastest  growing  of  the
various branches, both in Finland and internationally, and in Finland, over half of the turnover
of these services is produced in the Helsinki region. The voluntary sector, which in Finland is
smaller than in many other European countries, has been shown by international studies to be
important for maintaining employment and for reducing long-term unemployment.

In summary, the Foresight work of the Uusimaa EEDC includes special projects, and parallel
to  this,  the  continuous  acquisition  and  provision  of  Foresight  information  for  supporting
practical  work,  both  within  its  own  organisation  and  for  its  partners.  The  following  sections
describe  in  more  detail  how  the  continuous  interaction  between  Foresight  and  practice  has
been attempted.

Finally,  regarding  the  time  horizon  of  the  Foresight,  10-15  years  has  been  commonly  used.
This  means  that  when  collecting  information  from  networking  partners,  Foresight  exercises
with  this  time  horizon  are  focused  upon.    Sometimes  the  time  horizon  is  longer,  e.g.  in  the
"Manpower 2020" project of the Labour Ministry.  However, in the EEDC’s own projects, it can
also be shorter.  For instance, in the KIBS study, interviewees were asked to think about the
situation after five years and after ten years.  The shorter time period was needed because the
basic  information  on  this  sector  was  very  deficient.    In  the  voluntary  sector  project,  the  time
horizon used has also been 5-10 years (for much the same reasons).  Deciding on the time-
horizon has seen the need to balance two opposing factors: (1) the desire for Foresight to be
really future-oriented, and not too short-term; (2) the danger that a very long time horizon (30
years  or  so)  would  make  the  application  of  the  results  difficult  in  practice,  especially  at  the
regional level.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
In  Uusimaa  important  measures  for  involving  various  stakeholders  in  the  Foresight  activities
have  been  (1)  needs  analysis  for  Foresight,  (2)  a  start-up  plan  for  Foresight,  (3)  creating
network connections, and (4) Foresight training.

69

Needs analysis for Foresight: When the Foresight activities in the Uusimaa EEDC were just
starting-up, a central objective set was that Foresight  would  serve  practical  work  in  terms  of
both strategy and planning, as well as at the practical decision making level. In order for this
objective  to  succeed,  the  personnel  themselves  must  feel  that  Foresight  information  is
necessary and they must know how to use it. The needs analysis was carried out to clarify the
types of context in which employees in different positions would need information on the future,
whilst  at  the  same  time,  brief  training  sessions  were  held  on  Foresight  thinking,  Foresight
methods and the results of Foresight projects. The needs analysis and training were carried
out in 19 small-group sessions for the approximately 160 employees of the Uusimaa EEDC.

The Foresight start-up plan contained the following sections:
•  Summary and conclusions of the needs analysis
•  Plans  for  EEDC’s  own  Foresight  projects  and  for  acquisition  of  other  Foresight

information

•  Organisation of Foresight
•  Linking Foresight to leadership, strategic planning and decision making
•  Regional cooperation and networking for Foresight
•  Foresight training plan

Creating  network  connections:  After  the  work  for  the  start-up  plan,  Foresight  had  already
become a familiar concept within the EEDC's own organisation. The EEDC's first project of its
own  was  started  for  the  KIBS  sector.  In  order  for  the  objective  of  a  nation-wide  division  of
labour  to  be  successful,  networking  with  two  other  EEDCs  was  established  in  the  project.
During the duration of the project, numerous other network connections were established, with,
among others, professional associations specific to the branch. Similarly, a Foresight  project
that  was  later  started  for  the  voluntary  sector  enabled  the  establishment  of  network
connections with public sector actors, as well as with many associations. When the Foresight
activities of the Uusimaa EEDC became known  in  other organisations  conducting  Foresight,
cooperation also started with these. This reinforced the position of Foresight within the EEDC,
as information concerning the future development of many  branches and social  phenomena
could be acquired quickly.

Foresight  training  has  had  an  important  position  in  making  Foresight  well  known  and  in
committing different stakeholders to cooperation. Subsequent to the training in connection with
the  needs  analysis,  almost  40  other  training  sessions  have  been  held  and  around  1300
participants in all have attended these. A great part of the sessions has been directed to the
personnel  working  in  the  local  employment  offices  operating  under  the  EEDC  (employment
advisors,  career  guidance  officers),  and  to  cooperation  partners  of  the  EEDC  (teachers  and
student  advisors  in  schools  and  in  other  educational  institutes,  municipal  business  advisors,
etc.) The basic content of the training has been as follows:
• 
•  Foresight methods
•  The mega trends and weak signals of economic and social development
•  Results of branch-specific Foresight projects
•  Where to find additional information on Foresight

“From forecasting to Foresight” - the "philosophy" of Foresight

70

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
Foresight activity in the Uusimaa EEDC began in spring 1998 when a project group was set up
for this purpose. At the end of the same year, a full-time project manager was employed and at
the end of 1999 a full-time project researcher was taken on. The current decision to continue
the Foresight project until 2006 starts from the premise that the two people mentioned and the
Foresight group are responsible for the Foresight activity. The network connections also play a
decisive role in the Foresight work of the Uusimaa EEDC. One can say that the organisation of
Uusimaa Foresight consists of three parts:
•  A project-type two-person Foresight unit
•  A Foresight group as a regional form of networking
•  Cooperation projects as a means of other networking

16 people belong to the Foresight group. The EEDC's own departments and most important
units  are  primarily  represented  there.  Two  regional  councils,  the  City  of  Helsinki  and  the
National Technology Agency (Tekes) are also represented. Of the network connections that
have been implemented through projects, the following can be mentioned:
•  The  Ministry  of  Labour's  Manpower  2020  project,  in  which  the  Uusimaa  EEDC  is
involved in working groups dealing with regional occupation structures and the impact
of the development of the Information Society

•  A  project  of  the  provinces  for  developing  an  anticipation  system  for  qualification

requirements

•  A scenario project for the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers
•  The  EEDC  is  also  involved  in  the  secretariat  of  the  Ministry  of  Trade  and  Industry's

nation-wide project for developing technology Foresight.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Face  to  face  thematic  interviews  in  leading  companies  were  used  in  the  KIBS  Foresight
project.  The method of mega trend and weak signals analysis was adopted in summarising
the  results  and  drawing  conclusions.  The  results  were  evaluated  in  a  seminar  for
representatives  from  enterprises  in  the  KIBS  sector,  actors  in  the  public  sector,  and
researchers. A panel discussion of company representatives from different KIBS sub-branches
occupied  an  important  position  in  the  seminar.    The  results  were  also  dealt  with  at  several
smaller occasions with, among others, the professional associations in the branch.

In  the  project  concerning  the  voluntary  sector,  the  Foresight  work  was  done  in  four  expert
groups.    Two  of  these  dealt  with  the  development  outlooks  for  the  largest  areas  within  the
voluntary sector: (1) social and health-care and (2) training, culture and youth work.  The two
other  expert  groups  were  theme-specific,  dealing  with  (3)  the  future  development  of  the
voluntary sector in relation to the private and public sectors, and (4) the voluntary sector from
the perspective of citizens' scope for influence.

The  Foresight  project  employees,  as  well  as  the  Foresight  group  in  Uusimaa,  have  strived
continuously  for  increasing  their  methodological  know-how  in  Foresight  and  futures  studies.
Contacts have been made with researchers and research institutes on EEDC’s own initiative,
as well as through the nation-wide project. An important Foresight support in Finland in terms
of  methodology  is  the  Finland  Futures  Research  Centre  operating  within  the  University  of

71

Turku,  around  which  has  been  built  a  network  academy  for  futures  research  covering  all
universities in Finland.

The co-operation with other actors conducting Foresight is important, not only for acquisition of
information, but also in terms of learning and practising Foresight methods. In Uusimaa EEDC,
for example, quantitative forecasting methods have become familiar through network projects,
and more experience in practical application of scenario work has been acquired in this way.
The  current  Manpower  2020  project  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  involves  both  forecasting  and
scenario  writing  and  the  Foresight  project  of  the  Confederation  of  Finnish  Industry  and
Employers now being started is mainly based on scenario work.

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The results from the KIBS project are being used within the EEDC in the planning of further
training  for  employees  and  in  the  planning  of  supporting  activities  for  SMEs.  Two  special
projects  for  the  support  and  development  of  enterprises  are  ongoing  in  the  EEDC,  one  for
start-up businesses and the other for fast-growing businesses. In the KIBS project, there has
been very close co-operation with the latter project, since the branch particularly emphasised
at this stage has been the information technology sector.

In the case of KIBS, the EEDC’s idea for nation-wide division of labour and specialising has
been realised even on a continuous basis. From the beginning of 2001 onwards, the EEDC’s
Foresight project manager,  in  addition  to  the  Foresight  work,  has  assumed  responsibility  for
the nation-wide follow-up and development of the KIBS sector, in Sectoral Expert Services - an
activity  of  the  Ministry  of  Trade  and  Industry.  Along  with  this  task,  the  results  of  the  KIBS
project have been presented in different parts of the country, particularly in the various EEDCs,
but also at other occasions held by organisations from both the public and private sectors.

At  the  time  of  writing,  the  voluntary  sector  Foresight  project  that  started  later  is  just  at  the
finalisation  stage,  but  it  is  anticipated  that  the  results  of  this  project  will  be  used,  above  all,
when planning actions designed to alleviate and prevent long-term unemployment. Foresight
information from sources other than the EEDC's own projects has been used, for example, in
the  Foresight  training  described  above.  Another  important  use  of  this  information  is  in
supporting  strategic  planning,  one  practical  form  of  which  is  the  yearly  analysis  of  changing
trends in the EEDC's operating environment.

The Uusimaa EEDC's strengths in Foresight so far are firstly the extent to which people within
the  organisation  are  aware  of  Foresight  and  the  continuous  growth  of  skills  in  the  use  of
Foresight  information.  The  results  of  the  EEDC's  own  projects  have  proved  beneficial  in
practice  and  there  is  currently  a  continuous  demand  for  Foresight  training.  Networking  with
organisations from the public sector is extensive at both regional and national level.

Because  the  Foresight  activity  in  the  Uusimaa  EEDC  is  of  an  ongoing  nature,  one  cannot
actually  talk  about  "process  renewal",  but  rather  of  the  special  Foresight  topics  in  the  near
future  as  well  as  of  challenges  in  the  development  of  Foresight,  the  latter  reflecting  also
deficiencies of Foresight work done so far. The topics and challenges that are now considered
most important in Uusimaa are the following:
•  To  extend  the  topic  of  KIBS  to  service  innovations  and  Foresight  in  services  more

generally

72

•  To develop a closer link between technology Foresight and anticipation of qualification

requirements

•  To further increase the interaction between Foresight studies and practice
•  To build networks with the private sector, particularly with SMEs
•  To create a ‘real’ Foresight culture in the Uusimaa region

Extending the KIBS project to cover service innovations and the service branch more generally
is a central topic in the Foresight of Uusimaa EEDC in the next few years. In this regard, the
centre  will  be  working  in  close  co-operation  with  the  National  Technology  Agency  (Tekes),
which  has  set the  development  of  the  service  sector  by  means  of  technology  as  one  of  the
focal points of its activity. Cooperation with Tekes has also been initiated in the search for such
methods whereby technology Foresight and the anticipation of qualification requirements can
be  better  linked.    Representatives  of  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  municipalities  are  also
involved in this co-operation.

Although the Uusimaa EEDC has, in certain respects, been successful in connecting Foresight
with  practical  work,  it  is  believed  that  there  is  room  for  improvement.  The  "reputation"  of
Foresight within an organisation depends to a large extent on how the actors at different levels
experience  the  service  they  receive  from  the  Foresight  unit  in  terms  of  their  practical
information  needs.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  danger,  especially  at  regional  level,  that
Foresight  becomes  totally  subordinated  to  everyday  information  needs  and  actually  has  the
same  function  as  former  planning  units.  This  danger  has  been  recognised  in  the  Uusimaa
EEDC  and  in  order  to  avoid  it,  the  independence  and  research  focus  of  the  Foresight  unit
continue to be emphasised.

In  terms  of  networking,  connections  with  the  public  sector  are  good  and  co-operation  in
different directions is continuing.  One shortfall in the Foresight of the EEDC so far has been
an inadequate amount of practical co-operation with the private sector, although the picture is
brighter  for  KIBS.    In  further  work,  there  will  be  special  emphasis  on  building  network
relationships with the SME sector in other branches that are important for the Uusimaa region.
Using network connections, in addition to continuing Foresight training, the aim is to raise the
status of Foresight to a level where the Uusimaa EEDC can talk of a real Foresight culture.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY
Kekkonen  K.  (1998):  Instruments,  tools  and  policies  to  anticipate  the  effects  of  industrial
change  on  employment  and  vocational  qualifications.  Country  report:  Finland.  ESF
Publications 20/98. Ministry of Labour. Helsinki.

Nieminen  J.  (1999)  (ed.):  Methods  and  Practices  of  Regional  Anticipation  in  Finland.  ESF
Publications 45/99. Ministry of Labour. Helsinki.

Toivonen M. (2001): Main Development Features of Knowledge Intensive Business Services,
in  Toivonen  M.  (ed.):  Growth  and  Significance  of  Knowledge  Intensive  Business  Services.
Uusimaa T&E Centre’s Publications 3. Helsinki.

73

"Anticipation of Industrial Changes and Training Needs at Regional Level". Workshop held in
the  connection  of  International  Congress  "Enterprise,  Work,  Education  in  the  21st  Century.
Anticipating Changes in Working Life and Education". 13-14 December 1999. Helsinki.

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS
Project Manager Marja Toivonen
Maistraatinportti 2, P.O.Box 15, FIN-00241 Helsinki, Finland
Dir. +358 9 2534 2022, fax +358 9 2534 2400
e-mail: marja.toivonen@te-keskus.fi

Project Manager Jouko Nieminen
Maistraatinportti 2, P.O.Box 15, FIN-00241 Helsinki Finland
Dir. +358 9 2534 2487, fax +358 9 2534 2400
e-mail; jouko.nieminen@te-keskus.fi

74

CHAPTER 9 – WEST MIDLANDS (UK)

Foresight to support long-tem regional industrial SME competitiveness.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
The  newly  formed  Regional  Development  Agency  (RDA)  in  the  West-Midlands,  known  as
Advantage West Midlands (AWM), has recently been awarded ERDF Objective 2 funding to
conduct its own Foresight exercise.  Known as ‘Forensic’, the RDA’s expectation is that their
Foresight  project  will  play  a  key  role  in  helping  to  formulate  future  strategy.    As  there  was
existing  work  in  Foresight  going  on  nationally,  the  idea  was  to  tap  into  that  and  imitate  it  to
some  degree.    So  the  national  programme  was  a  strong  driver  for  the  establishment  of  a
regional exercise.

SSCCOOPPEE
AWM has been looking for a ‘fast track’ to achieving a regional Foresight exercise by means of
the  ERDF  money.    The  challenge  has  therefore  been  to  get  Foresight  into  the  region  in  as
short a time period as possible.  The backdrop to the project is the make-up of industry in the
region,  with  25-30,000  manufacturing  businesses  in  existence.    Many  of  these  are  small
traditional businesses that are considered not to be very good at strategic planning.  Forensic
is therefore being tailored to the needs of SMEs, to ensure that they are aware of the benefits
of Foresight.

Forensic’s  aims  are  to  support  regional  industrial  competitiveness  through  the  use  of
Foresight, the exchange of best practice, and the utilisation of a sound strategy for research,
technology  development  and  innovation.    The  approach  adopted  has  taken  the  Regional
Economic Strategy (RES) as its starting point.  The RES identified eight sectors for AWM to
concentrate upon.  Initially, the Foresight exercise focused on only four of the sectors identified
in  the  RES,  establishing  panels  in  Creative  Industries,  Medical  Technologies,  Tourism  &
Leisure,  and  Engineering  Design.    However,  after  about  six  months,  the  exercise  was
extended  to  cover  all  eight  RES  sectors.    This  was  made  possible  by  the  merging  of  the
Foresight  panels  with  a  set  of  working  groups,  known  as  Business  Growth  Task  Groups
(BGTGs), which had been set up to implement the RES.  The merger was not too traumatic,
since both  sets of  groups  were  already  focused  on  the  same  sectors  and  joint  membership
was not uncommon.  Moreover, the Foresight panels had met only twice before the merger.

The 10-20 year time horizon of the national programme was thought to be ‘off-track’ – if the
regional project can push SMEs to think 3-5 years out, then they consider themselves to be
doing well.  For this reason, the exercise has a relatively short time horizon.

Panel members were identified through personal contacts, names known to those in AWM and
on the  Steering Group.   Project  co-ordinators  have  attempted  to  ensure  that  innovation  and
design  councillors  from  Business  Links  are  represented  on  every  sectoral  panel,  especially
given  the  SME  focus.    Most  members  are  from  the  business  community,  although  there  is
some  academic  and  regional  government  representation.    There  are  no  plans  to  consult
beyond the membership of the panels in drawing up visions and Action Plans.  This is because
members were appointed to the panels as spokespersons for the wider interests in the region.
Of  course,  spokespersons  were  free  to  consult  their  constituencies  if  they  thought  it

75

appropriate.    But  there  are  no  plans  for  a  project-wide  questionnaire  survey,  although  the
Engineering Design panel has sent out a questionnaire of its own.

The  budget  for  the  project  is  £472,000  over  two  years  (2000-02),  with  50%  funding  coming
through ERDF, which is considerably more than other UK regions have had at their disposal to
undertake Foresight exercises.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
In trying to raise awareness of Foresight, project co-ordinators have tried to work with the trade
associations (TAs) in a given sector.  They start with the complete list of panels and task forces
at the national level and then try to map these to the interests of the TAs in the region – this is
a  good  way  to  raise  interest  in  Foresight.    In  addition,  they  organise  events  and  workshops
with  the  TAs.    The  project’s  approach  is  not  to  dictate  what  should  be  done,  but  rather  to
discuss the needs of TA members and to work with the TA to meet these needs.  Speakers
from the national programme panels and task forces are invited to give presentations to TAs,
and they also arrange presentations on the use of methods.

In  addition,  AWM  has  tried  to  identify  a  lead  partner  in  each  panel,  e.g.  in  Medical
Technologies,  Medilink  is  the  lead  partner.    These  are  encouraged  to  provide  some  of  their
own  (often  human)  resources,  although  ultimately  AWM  has  the  resources  to  support  the
panels.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
As  we  have  already  seen,  Forensic  is  organised  within  eight  business  sectoral  panels
(BGTGs) that have been set up to implement the RES.  Each BGTG is different, depending on
the  sector,  but  all  are  looking  to  bring  together  the  main  players  in  their  sectors,  and  are
responsible to AWM for sectoral strategic priorities and plans.  The first thing the BGTGs have
been doing is developing shared visions for their sectors from which they can identify the main
trends and drivers, and then work back for their planning.

In  addition,  a  Steering  Group  has  been  appointed,  along  with  two  full-time  project  co-
ordinators,  based  at  Coventry  University,  including  an  AWM  secondee.    However,  certain
tasks  have  been  contracted  out  to  expert  units,  e.g.  at  the  University  of  Birmingham,  the
Centre  for  Urban  and  Regional  Studies  has  recently  established  an  ‘observatory’  looking  at
regional trends and they are working for the project.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Forensic has been very dependent on the national programme for the articulation of key trends
and drivers and has attempted to reinterpret these from a regional perspective.  This is set to
change  when  the  regional  panels  have  drawn  up  their  own  Action  Plans  (by  spring  2001)  -
they will then be able to draw upon these in their work with SMEs.

As for AWM’s relation with the national programme, the five-year life cycle has been perceived
as a big problem, since this sees consultation activities and report production occur during a
relatively  narrow  window  of  time  in  the  national  Foresight  ‘cycle’.    This  means  there  is  little
material  for  the  regions  to  use  to  keep  SMEs  engaged.    Also,  to  engage  with  a  national
Foresight Panel was like having to deal with a separate Foresight Directorate, with each Panel

76

having  its  own  arrangements.    From  the  regional  perspective,  there  seemed  to  be  no
consistent approach across the national programme, which has made contacts difficult.  Also,
some national Panels have been keen to do regional events whilst others have not.  All of this
has had to be considered when planning to do anything at the regional level.

As  for  the  deployment  of  Foresight  methods  in  drawing  up  visions  and  Action  Plans,  the
project co-ordinators have tried to get the panels to develop scenarios, but with great difficulty:
it  has  been  hard  to  get  people  to  think  beyond  their  established  mind  sets  (and  interests).
Consequently,  one  of  the  project  co-ordinators  has  written  scenarios  using  the  trends  and
drivers identified during meetings, and he then puts these to the panels.  By doing this, it gets
the  panels  over  the  initial  hurdle.    He  uses  a  SWOT-STEEP  approach  in  constructing
scenarios, and has looked at what is going on in the rest of the world in order to validate them.
Validation is done mostly through web searches, but he also uses books and papers written on
the sectors, as well as DTI work.  Obtaining regional level audit/benchmarking data has proven
particularly  difficult,  although  the  Centre  for  Local  Economic  Development  (Coventry
University) has now been sub-contracted to collect and collate regional level statistics.

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
Project co-ordinators make presentations at other organisations’ events and have a stand at
regional exhibitions.   The  objective  is  to direct  SMEs  onto  other  business  support  agencies.
Foresight is a high level strategic project from which SMEs need to be  directed  towards  the
right schemes.  At all Foresight events, they have a mini exhibition of the various schemes and
initiatives that are available, covering not just Business Links, but also schemes run by banks,
for  example.    Foresight  does  not  want  to  duplicate  but  rather  reinforce  existing  work  and
schemes  that  are  out  there  already.    They  are  working  with  these  schemes  rather  than  in
competition.  It has been about positioning Foresight as a ‘neutral’ project – the AWM has no
axe to grind.  All agencies are therefore invited to Foresight events.

In fact, Foresight as a product is not considered to be very strong, and the Steering Group has
had many discussions on whether to use the Foresight label, given the debate that this puts off
firms.  But one benefit for keeping the name is that it receives DTI recognition and attention
when  labelled  as  Foresight.    But  from  a  company  point  of  view,  there  is  a  need  to  show
positive business impact.  For this reason, the project is linked to business marketing planning.
The  plan  is  to  identify  a  Foresight  SME  ‘Top  10’  and  project  co-ordinators  are  looking  to
identify case studies to show that Foresight works and has tangible benefits.  This approach
involves working with each SME case on a one-to-one basis to produce business-marketing
plans.    This  will  be  done  once  the  regional  panels  have  produced  their  visions  and  Action
Plans in spring 2001 and will result in the publication and distribution of a case study report in
late 2001.  A client-partner database will also be set up to ensure that SMEs in the region are
engaged and to monitor  the  reach  of  the  Foresight  message  to  all of  its  intended  audience.
This  will  be  done  with  the  help  of  TAs.    A  media-relations  strategy  has  been  drawn  up  to
ensure that information reaches all those involved.

The  benefit  of  merging  with  the  RES  infrastructure  for  Foresight  is  that  the  resources
earmarked by AWM for supporting the BGTGs (i.e. administrative support in the form of Sector
Co-ordinators)  is  now  also  employed  to  benefit  the  Foresight  project.    This  gives  Foresight
more leverage and influence within AWM.

77

It should be noted that ERDF Objective 2 funding covers just 65% of the region and, of course,
larger  firms are not  covered  by  the project.   Project  co-ordinators  have  therefore  applied  for
extra resources from DTI and the new Rover Task Force.  If successful, the latter will allow the
project  to  be  extended  to  2003  and  would  allow  a  further  25  SMEs  to  be  targeted  for  case
studies.

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS
Dr. Clive Winters, Regional Foresight Manager
Advantage West Midlands, The Technocentre, Puma Way, Coventry CV1 2TT.
Tel. 024 7623 6812
Fax 024 7623 6024
E-mail: Clive.Winters@coventry.ac.uk
Foresight West Midlands Website: www.foresightwm.co.uk

78

CHAPTER 10 - LIMOUSIN 2017 (France)

Foresight to raise self-determination, local responsibility and commitment to long-term choices

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
Limousin  is  a  region  of  710  000  inhabitants  located  in  the  centre  of  France.    The  GDP  has
been stable since 1986 and represents 1% of the national total.  The region has a strong urban
polarisation but agriculture is still very present in the regional economy accounting for 9% of
total employment.  80% of the firms in Limousin are SMEs with less than 5 employees.  The
main  industrial  sectors  are  food  processing,  electricity  and  electronic,  wood,  paper,  and
minerals.  The region has a real diversity of its industrial base.  Even if the migratory balance is
positive, one of the specificities of the region is a strong ageing population with an imbalance
between the east and the west of the territory.

Limousin was the first French region to conduct a Foresight exercise in 1987.  At the time, the
situation  was  favourable:  the  newly  formed  regional  council  wanted  to  situated  itself  in  the
institutional scene and the development of European construction with the Single Market and
the new regional policy was a stake for a new regional policy.

In  1997,  a  second  exercise  was  launched  in  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  ERDF
negotiations, and negotiations with the State for the pluri-annual contract 2000-2006 (CPER).

SSCCOOPPEE
The objective of the Foresight exercise was to help decision-makers make their choices, but
also to clarify the regional situation for the inhabitants and more widely for the public at large.
For that reason, the focus of the exercise was very large and was not intended to exactly align
with the policies of the regional council.  The idea was also that every inhabitant, in their day-
to-day life and activities, should take into account the results of the exercise. That is the reason
why the subtitle of the exercise is: “The ball’s in our court!”

Similar to the first Foresight in 1987, which was called “Limousin 2007”, the second exercise in
1997 (“Limousin 2017”) had a time horizon of 20 years.  The duration of the exercise was two
years, and 250 people, covering all sectors of regional life, were mobilised in working groups.
The Regional Council financed the whole process.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
In order to raise awareness and enrol participants, the Regional Council has, during the whole
process, initiated many actions, including:
•  Regular articles in the regional press
•  Publication of documents and first outputs
•  On-line publication of workshop reports
•  On-line forum in order to allow debates and comments at a wide level

79

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
A team of 5 persons working in the Regional Council managed the exercise, with an external
consultant,  specialised  in  Foresight  activities,  assisting  them.    A  steering  committee  was
appointed  and  led  jointly  by  the  President  of  the  Regional  Council  and  the  Préfet
(representative of the State at regional level).

The work was structured around 19 working groups.  The organisation of these groups was as
follows:
First phase: Diagnostic

Orientation & Synthesis Group: Activity
Sub-group 1: Monitoring of the Foresight study of activity sectors
Sub-group 2: S&T resources
Sub-group 3: Services
Sub-group 4: Agriculture
Sub-group 5: Wood
Sub-group 6: Retail, craft & tourism
Orientation & Synthesis Group: Society
Sub-group 1: Demography & lifestyle
Sub-group 2: Education & training system
Sub-group 3: Identity, images & creativity
Orientation & Synthesis Group: Territory
Sub-group 1: Future of territorial context
Sub-group 2: Territory organisation & management
Sub-group 3: Territorial economical logic
Transversal Issue Group: Sustainable Development

Second phase: Strategy
Group Activity
Group Society
Group Territory

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Limousin  2017  was  an  “action-prospective  exercise”  and  it  was  quite  different  from
Limousin 2007, since it took into account:
•  What occurred in Limousin since 1987, and what was useful in this preceding exercise
•  What  are  the  new  trends:  some  were  evident,  like  the  Euro  and  the  Internet,  others

were less evident or really recent

•  New prospective tools: in 1987, they were oriented towards knowledge whereas today

prospective has become very operational and oriented towards action

As a consequence of this approach, Limousin 2017 was divided into 3 phases:
•  Phase 1: retrospective

This phase aimed to look at the recent evolutions, the trends, and to identify those that
exist  since  1987,  those  that  have  changed  since  this  date  and  those  that  appeared
since  1987.    It  also  aimed  at  describing  the  regional  situation.    It  also  made  an
assessment  of  the  first  “Limousin  2007”  Foresight,  asking  whether  the  exercise  had
influenced decision-makers?
•  Phase 2: prospective diagnosis

80

Two questions summarise this phase: what does the future depend upon?  And what
does  Limousin’  future  depend  upon?    The  diagnosis  analysed,  on  the  one  hand,  the
context, and on the other, the specificity of Limousin.  The objective here was to identify
the direct or indirect impacts of some of the main trends on Limousin, to investigate the
possible futures for the region, and to think about possibilities for action.

•  Phase 3: Action

Taking into account the results of the diagnosis phase, this phase aimed to identify the
main trends that will be important determinants for the region’s future.

Three levels of inputs were mobilised for this work:
•  An inventory of all the publications related to the main trends
•  Specific  studies  about  the  positioning  of  Limousin  in  relation  with  some  of  the  main

trends

• 

Invited experts (21) to debate with the different working groups

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The main output of the “Limousin 2017” exercise is a global report, available for free and which
can also be consulted on line via the web server of the Regional Council.  This report takes
into account:
•  Reports written by the working groups
•  Documents selected to identify the trends
•  Specific studies realised during the exercise
•  Experts’ inputs
•  Different  works  or  studies  undertaken  outside  of  the  process  but  which  have  been

integrated as inputs during the exercise

The  report  also  integrated  some  “stories”  of  people  who,  because  of  their  activities,  are
committed in the region’s life.

It  can  be  argued  that  Foresight  in  Limousin  has  become  a  regional  habit,  with  the  second
exercise drawing quite heavily upon the first.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY
Benoît Lajudie (dir), “Limousin 2017, à nous de jouer” rapport général, french edition.

CCOONNTTAACCTTSS  DDEETTAAIILLSS::
Conseil régional du Limousin, 27 boulevard de la Corderie 87031 Limoges Cedex, France
Tél +33 5 55 45 19 00
www.cr-limousin.fr/new2017/index.html
(Contacts : Benoît LAJUDIE, Fabienne Goux-Baudiment –Service “études, prospective,
évaluation”-)

81

CHAPTER 11 - PROVINCE OF LIEGE (Belgium)

Foresight to guide the emergence and development of the ‘regional’ information society.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
The FASIL (Forcer l'Avenir par la Société de l'Information en région de Liège) Project intends
to  ensure  that  the  Liege  region  takes  full  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the
Information Society through a strategic approach and a programme of actions.  It is managed
by  the  SPI+  and  SOCRAN,  and  has  been  granted  financial  support  by  the  European
Commission (under Article 10 of the ERDF regulations), the Walloon Region and the Province
of Liege. A Steering Committee of about thirty members monitors the project closely.

The first phase of the project was carried out between March 1997 and November 1998 and
allowed a strategy and a plan of actions in the field of the Information Society to be laid down.
A specific Foresight programme, using the Delphi methodology, has been launched within this
project.

SSCCOOPPEE
The  main  objective  of  the  Foresight  programme  was  to  build  a  consensual  view  amongst
experts about the stakes of Information Society development in the Province of Liège and the
projects that could be developed to enhance this development.  A mid-term time horizon was
chosen for the exercise.  100 people have been approached as experts.  50% of the cost of
the Foresight programme was funded through ERDF as a part of the global FASIL project.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
Although 100  experts  were  approached  at  the beginning  of the  project,  only  42  accepted  to
help during the first round (DELPHI 1).  Most of these experts were from the region.  During
the  second  round  (DELPHI  2),  the  42  experts  were  approached  again.  23  accepted  to
participate to this second round.  These percentages may seem low, but are quite normal with
Delphi surveys.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
Delivering  the  DELPHI  survey  was  entrusted  to  the  SEGEFA  university  department,  which
worked in close collaboration with the operational staff.  The following stages give details of the
steps taken:
•  Definition of the different themes to be targeted
•  Development of questionnaires
•  Verification  of  their  pertinence  amongst  resource  people  linked  to  the  University  and

also experts from MERIT and LENTIC

•  Selection of a panel of experts (based on a defined profile) to be contacted according

to the theme in question
•  Following up of experts

82

•  Thorough analysis of replies according to the different points of view and presentation

of the results

•  Development of a synthesis
•  Development of the DELPHI II questionnaire

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
The DELPHI I questionnaire covered the following 8 themes:
•  Transport & Logistics
•  Public transport
•  Economic development
•  Health
•  Education development and adult education
•  Media - Culture
•  Administration
•  Citizen services

Each  questionnaire  for  the  first  seven  themes  was  addressed  to  the  relevant  experts.  The
questionnaire on the 8th theme (Citizens services) was addressed to all the experts in the role
of citizens.  Thus, each expert replied to two themes.

Each  thematic  questionnaire  (the  first  7  on  the  list  above)  asked  the  expert  to  express
themselves on the following four major points.

1)  An assessment of strengths and weaknesses and the correlative exposition of evolution

prospects, the extent of application being the Province of Liege;

2)  The issues that imply the use of NTIC’s; each issue (11 were identified) was the object of
a general question and several affirmations.  Each ‘issue’ question had an affirmation on
which  the  expert  gave  an  opinion  amongst  the  8  nuances  proposed.    In  addition,  they
gave  their  opinion,  for  these  affirmations  on  the  subject  of  opportunities  /  threats
concerning the situation of the region.

3)  The leads for the region, positioning with regard to firm proposals of action possibly to be
carried  out  in  the  future.  The  expert  was  asked  to  choose  and  justify  two  of  these
proposals which would be priority for the development of the region as well as two which
would be easy to put into action;

4)  Propositions,  in  accordance  with  the  vision  of  the  expert,  still  in  the  optic  of  a  concrete

application within our region.

For the ‘Citizens services’ theme, each expert replied, as a citizen, to proposals issued from
affirmations and proposals from the 6 thematic questionnaires (transport was grouped under
one theme), always positioning themselves with regards to the region. Each expert also chose

83

2 proposals in each theme that he subscribed to, expressing his justification and his vision of
possible obstacles.

The DELPHI II file was sent to 42 experts of DELPHI 1, it included three main parts.

1)  The communication of the results of the DELPHI 1 questionnaire enabled the experts to
situate their replies (from his own theme and the citizens services theme) in relation with
those of the other experts. The expert was asked if he wished to modify one or several of
his replies to DELPHI 1 and to give a justification;

2)  New thematic proposals. These  are  supported  in particular  by  the  conclusions from the
working  parties.    A  number  of  firm  proposals  for  projects  to  be  developed  in  the  Liege
region have been the object of a request for expert opinion. The firm proposals reserved
for  the  questionnaire  concerned  major  projects  that  were  able  to  illustrate  actions  that
support the main theme of the project;

3)  A general demand for the validation of the SWOT grids presented for each theme and, in
a  global  form  for  all  the  themes.  These  grids  were  designed  by  integrating  all  the
observations made since the first version from October 1997 and by expressing the main
needs  of  users  as  shown  by  the  answers  to  the  DELPHI  1  questionnaire  and  the
conclusions reached by the working parties.

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The DELPHI study has not produced a specific output.  The exercise was used as a tool to
develop the regional Information Society strategy, and this strategy has been the real output,
taking  into  account  the  results  of  the  DELPHI  survey.    However,  a  specific  annexe  of  the
strategy provides details about the survey (questionnaires, hypothesis of work etc.). The only
outputs  directly  coming  from  the  survey  were  graphs  showing  the  areas  of  convergence
between the experts’ opinion and the areas of conflict.

Expectations  have  been satisfied  even  if  the  limited  number  of  experts  mobilised  during  the
second phase weakens the final results.  The DELPHI has not produced regional mobilisation
nor developed a global Foresight process in the region, but as the Annexe to this Guide will
suggest, this is not the role of such a method.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY
Projet  FASIL  Favoriser  l’Avenir  par  la  Société  de  l’Information  en  région  de  Liège-  Rapport
final,  downloadable  from  the  web  site  www.liegeonline.be/fasil/rapport.html,  with  an  english
version.

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS::
SPI, 11 Rue du Verbois B-4000 Liège, Belgique
Tel +32 4 230 11 11
Fax +32 4 230 11 20
E-mail: fasil@liegeonline.be
(Contacts: Jérôme SAMAIN, Damien JACOB -attachés FASIL)

84

CHAPTER 12 - NORD-PAS DE CALAIS (France)

Foresight to guide the development of a strategic plan for regional development.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
The Regional Council of Nord - Pas de Calais has organised "prospective seminars" since the
beginning  of  the  1990's.  The  goal  of  these  seminars  has  been  mainly  to  elicit  the  views  of
thematic experts (at regional or national level), in order for them to explain the main trends in
their  domain  (economy,  demography,  technology,  etc.).    However,  it  was  not  until  the
beginning of 1999 that a specific "Foresight" team was set up and that the Regional Council
decided to launch a systematic Foresight exercise.  The trigger for such action was the need
for the Region to raise awareness of its different departments who will have to participate in the
‘redaction’  of  a  regional  plan  (Schéma  régional  d'aménagement  et  de  développement  du
territoire - regional scheme for planning and development).

SSCCOOPPEE
The Foresight programme aimed to initiate a strategic approach to elaborate the regional plan,
and  to  clarify  available  options  through  a  better  knowledge  of  regional  society,  an
understanding  of  the  regional  environment’s  evolution,  and  better  information  about  regional
interests.

Because of its objective, participation in the programme was limited to people working in the
departments  of  the  Regional  Council.  The  goal  of  the  exercise  was  not  to  mobilise  regional
actors  or  to  create  networking.    Nevertheless,  the  focus  of  the  exercise  was  very  large  and
aimed to take in all the aspects of regional life in a broad sense.  In the same way, the time
horizon was set for 20 years ("the time necessary for action").

The time  schedule  of  the project  was  quite  short:  from  February  to  September  1999  for  the
working group, and from September 1999 to February 2000 to exploit the results.  The cost of
the  programme  (entirely  covered  by  the  Regional  Council)  were  mainly  concerned  with  the
provision  of  human  resources  (3  full-time  staff).  As  it  was  an  internal  exercise,  other  typical
costs  associated  with  more  disseminating  exercises  (organisation  of  meetings,  etc.)  were
reduced.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
Attendance  at  the  working  groups  was  organised  on  a  voluntary  base.  Three  preliminary
meetings were organised to explain the process, and the internal newsletter and the Intranet
were used to create publicity.  A specific area in the Intranet was set up to share information,
such as minutes of the working groups, reports, articles or bibliography related to the themes
of the working group.  Altogether, 50 people attended the different working groups.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
The  work  was  structured  into  working  groups.  These  working  groups  were  organised  into  4
thematic areas. In each of these thematic areas, a work-plan was organised as follows:
•  Social and individual behaviour

85

-  Demographics behaviour
-  Health
-  Citizenship and identity
-  Solidarity and association
-  Education and training
-  Way of life and social time
-  Collective actions and democracy
-  Utopia
•  Regional resources

-  Environmental resources
-  Waste material
-  Energetic resources
-  Human resources - training
-  Human resources - research
-  Human resources - culture
-  Public financial resources
-  Private financial resources

•  Economy

-  Pertinence of the regional space
-  The world markets
-  Consumption changes
Immaterial markets
- 
-  New services
-  New economy
-  Management changes
-  Employment and work

•  Regional area and territory
-  Human mobility
-  Urban structure
-  Rural and agricultural areas
-  Land areas
-  Animation of the sub-areas
Intra-regional goods flows
- 
- 
International goods flows
-  Europe and "Euroregion" (cross-border area)

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Before each meeting, a "position paper" with key articles, main trends, etc. was prepared by
the  Foresight  team  and  distributed  to  participants.    Sometimes,  participants  also  provided
some  inputs  by  way  of  a  specific  paper.    A  member  of  the  Foresight  team  animated  each
working group but the discussion was  quite free  and  the  objective  was  that people  question
themselves (awareness process). The goal was not to create scenarios but to ask questions
(even without answers).

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The main output of the programme has been a "Short guide of prospective - Nord - Pas  de
Calais  2020".  The  guide  has  been  largely  disseminated  within  the  Regional  Council  and  a

86

presentation of this guide has been organised for the employees.  It is published in a specific
collection related to north of France issues.

The Foresight team is still in place in Nord - Pas de Calais, but its main role is now to support
and supervise the work for the ‘redaction’ of the regional plan.  A new Foresight programme is
planned  for  this  task.    This  will  be  much  more  open  to  regional  actors,  since  one  of  the
objectives will be to create regional consensus on the content of the regional plan.  The new
Foresight will be structured by thematic (culture, economy, environment, urban) areas.

This  prospective  exercise  allowed  the  creation  of  a  “collective  intelligence”  about  the  stakes
and future trends for a very large focus of 60 themes.  It helped to identify the possible futures
of  Nord-Pas  de  Calais  and  to  plan  some  concrete  actions  in  terms  of  social  innovations,
innovations by training and R&D, exchanges of experience, etc.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY
Jean-François STEVENS (dir),"Petit guide de prospective Nord-Pas de Calais 2020", éditions
de l’aube, collection Aube nord, French edition, 2000.

CCOONNTTAACCTTSS  DDEETTAAIILLSS::
Conseil régional du Nord-pas-de-calais, Centre Rihour 59555 Lille Cedex, France.
Tél +33 3 28 82 82 82
www.cr-npdc.fr/aube_nord/prospective/intro.htm
(Contacts: Jean-François STEVENS, Fanny MILBLED -Mission SRAT, Direction plan et
évaluation)

87

CHAPTER 13 – BALTIC STRING4 (Denmark, Sweden, Germany)

Foresight to reach a common vision and strategic action plan for cross-border co-operation and
regional development.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
Since  the  end  of  the  1980s,  the  European  Community  has  reserved  substantial  funds  to
promote  cross-border  co-operation  between  neighbouring  border  regions  and  to  help  these
regions develop regional policies.  Much of this support over the last decade has come through
the INTERREG initiative, although cross-border co-operation has also been supported within
the framework of Phare and Tacis programmes in Central and East European countries and in
the newly independent states.

Subsequently,  a  large  number  of  cross-border  arrangements  have  emerged,  aimed  at
furthering  general  European  integration,  improving  economic  development,  bringing  people
closer  together  and  solving  joint  environmental  problems.    But  as  cross-border  co-operation
has  progressed  and  acquired  more  and  more  concrete  contents,  the  need  has  arisen  for
adequate organizational forms and actors capable of taking the initiative, deciding on actions
and implementing them.  In many border regions, activities have often tended to be framed by
national  interests  and  not  by  a  broader  cross-border  outlook.    In  long-term  cross-border  co-
operation  activities,  misunderstandings  and  conflicts  may  arise  due  to  information  gaps  as
knowledge  about  systems,  rules  and  norms  is  embedded  in  national  identities.    In  such
circumstances, it is hoped that Foresight methods (in the sense of participative exploration of
joint  interests)  can  offer  a  more  promising  way  of  addressing  the  sensitivity  of  the  national
border  and  for  giving  meaning  to  the  construction  of  co-operation  across  borders  and
boundaries.

In  the  South-western  part  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  a  diverse  group  of  regional  authorities  have
recently  concluded  a  two-and-a-half-year  strategy  process  on  how  to  jointly  create  a
sustainable basis for growth and development in an increasingly globalised world.  This project
is called the STRING project (South-western Baltic Sea Trans Regional Area Inventing New
Geography),  and  the  strategy  process  it  involves  has  been  guided  by  a  regional  Foresight
approach  to  ensure  that  the  articulation,  execution  and  exploitation  of  joint  efforts  were
coordinated across three national borders.  Thus, whilst the STRING project is nested within
the guiding principles of the structural funds, the spatial planning perspective and the use of
Foresight methods have offered an open strategy process, which is qualitatively different from
the normal programme procedures and the anticipated distribution of funds.

The regional authorities involved in the STRING project are: The Öresund Committee (S/DK),
a cross-border co-operation committee with Danish and Swedish local and regional authorities;
the County of West Zealand (DK); the County of Storstroem  (DK); the  City  of  Hamburg  (D);
and  the  State  of  Schleswig-Holstein  (D).    The  STRING  area  has  a  population  of  7.9  million
inhabitants and covers an area of 36,800km2.  The density of population is 215 (hab./km2) and
the annual Gross Domestic Product per capita is one of the highest in Europe at 27,500 Euro.

4 This text has been taken from B Holst Joergensen (2001), “Foresight in Cross-Border Cooperation”, IPTS Report,
vol.59, November 2001

88

                                                
SSCCOOPPEE
The main aim of the STRING project has been to develop a common strategic platform and
jointly  address  common  conditions,  options  and  challenges.    Networking  among  specialists,
planners and decision-makers has been another explicit aim of the project.  An implicit aim is
to influence the political agenda on a possible future link across Femer Belt between Denmark
and  Germany.    Thus,  target  groups  for  the  project  include  regional  and  local  authorities,
universities  and  research  institutions,  centres  of  education  and  vocational  training,  trade
unions,  chambers  of  commerce,  business  development  organisations,  cultural  institutions,
Agenda 21 actors and other NGOs.

The project had a total budget of 1.3 million Euro, of which 0.7 million Euro was co-financed by
INTERREG IIC.  It had a duration of 30 months (January 1999 – July 2001), which may seem
a long time, but experience from various bilateral cross-border co-operation programmes in the
region taught the STRING partners that it takes time to develop a common language and give
meaning to the common vision and strategic action plan.  The time horizon for the exercise is
ten years, to 2010.

Above all else, then, the STRING project has been about building bridges – in  the  sense of
both the physical constructions across the sea and the social constructions across institutional
and  spatial  boundaries.    The  overall  aim  has  been  to  create  a  STRING  of  interrelated  and
dynamic  urban  and  rural  locations  including  towns,  cities  and  villages.    The  idea  of  the
STRING project is thus to reach a critical mass by building bridges in order to cope with future
changes in society on a regional, European and even global level.  As for the physical bridges,
the project has kept alive  the  political debate on  the  "missing"  link  across the  Femer  Belt to
conclude the so-called Scandinavian link from Sweden over Denmark to Germany.  As for the
social construction, the project has brought people and systems together across three national
borders within a long-term strategic cooperation framework.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
Commitment  was  steadily  built  up  throughout  the  process  (e.g.  in  this  case  from  the  initial
project  application for  INTERREG  IIC funds) through  the  various  workshop  meetings,  to  the
political  forums  and  public  conferences  that  occurred  later  in  the  project.    It  was  always
believed that this broad support would be sufficient to make it possible to embark on concrete
projects within strategic action fields giving shape to the vision of a high quality area based on
innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainability.

Related to this, one thing that turned out to be an important feature of the STRING strategy
process was the cautious building of democratic legitimacy, linking each step of the Foresight
process to the democratic institutions of the region.  The idea was NOT to build yet another
political-administrative  structure  –  rather,  the  idea  was  to  create  a  dynamic  political  forum
where political representatives of the STRING partners could meet, discuss and give direction
to the project.  The political representatives actively participated and committed themselves to
the  formulation  and  implementation  of  the  strategy  and  the  action  plan.    They  met  in  five
political forums during the course of the process, often in relation to the thematic workshops
and the conferences (see below).  These forums constituted the milestones of the project and
opened up the project to a broader perspective and focus.  How each political representative
gave an account of agreed policies and ideas to his/her constituencies was a matter for each
representative  and  the  government  system  he/she  represented  –  members  included,  for
example, a county mayor, a town mayor, a city mayor, and a state prime minister.

89

The  broader  public  was  informed  through  political  resolutions,  together  with  newsletters,
reports and a project web-page (www.balticstring.net).  Although these decisions were made
politically accountable to the citizens living in the region, the political representatives were fully
aware that the future of the STRING region was closely related to bringing the activities much
closer  to  the  people.    In  1997  unexpected  civic  resistance  to  closer  cooperation  across  the
Danish-German land border, in combination with widespread scepticism about the European
project,  had  taught  the  promoters  of  the  new  region  to  be  much  more  sensitive  to  the
complexities of European integration.  However, the STRING partners also agreed that public
ownership would be closely related to implementing decisions and producing concrete results
affecting  daily  life.    The  STRING  project  should  make  a  difference  to  citizens  living  in  the
region, and should enhance it as a place to live and work. In other words, it had to offer flexible
solutions to everyday problems in a cross-border region, such as transportation, recognition of
diplomas  and  credit 
integrated  coastal
management, etc.

tax  systems,  cultural 

transfer  systems, 

life, 

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  &&  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
Language, in the literal sense of the word, was one of the first things to agree on as the
co-operation  crosses  three  countries,  each  with  its  own  language.    From  the  very
beginning  it  was  agreed  that  the  common  language  should  be  English  so  that  all
participants  could  communicate  on  equal  terms.    It  was  also  a  particular  challenge  to
develop a common administrative language bringing together divergent administrative and
political decision-making cultures and practices.

The overall process was managed by a steering group consisting of regional administrative
leaders  and  a  small  project  secretariat  whose  officials  were  appointed  by  each  STRING
partner from their own staff.  They met regularly and communicated in between meetings by e-
mail.    This  project  secretariat,  which  was  not  tied  to  a  particular  physical  location,  was  the
driving force throughout the whole process.

The  formulation  of  joint  interests  and  actions  was  made  in  an  open  process  involving  more
than  100  experts  from  universities,  research  institutes,  chambers  of  commerce,  local  and
regional  authorities,  associations  and  organisations  (STRING,  2000).    The  experts  came
together in thematic working groups, each of which was chaired by a key official from one of
the STRING partners.  The experts were appointed by each STRING partner on the basis of
their personal merits, and not, as it is often  the  case,  on  the  basis  of  the  organisations  they
represented.    This  meant  that  new  networks  were  created,  and  old  ones  were  given  new
meaning.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Within thematic workshops, experts identified driving factors for the future development
(10-year  time  horizon)  of  business  and  industry  (local  versus  global  spatial  orientation;
learning  capabilities  oriented  towards  tradition;  history  and  stability  versus  rapid  change
and  innovation)  and  later  elaborated  four  equally  plausible  scenarios  (The  "ellipse  of
change"; "global province"; the "local gold rush"; "home sweet home").

Communication  between  the  participants  was  supported  by  reports  and  discussion  papers
produced by consultants. One theme was barriers to, and potential for, business development;

90

a  second  theme  focused  upon  the  urban-
rural  dimension  and 
the  strengths  of
polycentric  urban  structures;  and  a  final
theme  addressed  sustainable  mobility.    As
the  contracts  for  these  reports  were  signed
prior  to  setting  up  the  thematic  working
groups.  They  did  not 
the
these  groups.
information 
However, some adjustments were made and
additional papers were produced.  Thus, one
lesson  learned  from  this  process  was  that
working groups should be actively involved in
formulating the terms of reference of external
reports  so  as  to  ensure  they  closely  match
their requirements.

required  by 

fully  reflect 

The project  secretariat  and  the chairmen of  the  thematic  work  groups  assured  co-ordination
between scenarios for the future development of the STRING region, a common vision and a
strategic action plan (see below).  They also managed the overall process and decided to
use  the  scenario  framework  of  one  working  group  to  guide  the  final  work  of  the  other  two
groups.    The  scenarios  were  used  as  a  starting  point  for  developing  a  preferred  vision  of  a
STRING  region,  characterised  by  a  high  quality  of  life  based  on  innovation,  entrepreneurial
spirit  and  sustainability.    The  vision  was  agreed  by  all  thematic  working  groups  and  later
presented to the political forum of the STRING partners.

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
The  STRING  partners  reached  a  commitment  to  implement  the  strategic  action  plan,  both
during the whole process and also in the concluding conference in June 2001.  The strategic
action plan comprised seven areas of strategic priorities for future activities
•  Business Development –based on innovation and creativity
•  Learning Society –social capital as a pre-requisite for technological innovation
•  Exchange of Knowledge  –  to foster  potential  synergies  between private  corporations,
public  research  institutions  and  academia  as  well  as  between  different  academic
disciplines

•  Mobility  of  People  –  meaning  physical  mobility  as  well  as  professional,  educational,

mental and cultural mobility

Infrastructure and Transport – aimed improving technical facilities

• 
•  Environment,  Nature  and  Landscape  –  as  a  general  challenge 

for  regional

development

•  Culture – as a result of the uprooting of traditional national values in favour of "glocal"

(i.e. simultaneously global and local) values.

Some projects were already agreed and  initiated during  the  strategy  process,  e.g.  the Baltic
Sea Virtual Campus project involving Swedish and German educational partners, whilst others
were  ready  for  take  off.    These  projects  were  called  “lighthouse”  projects,  since  they  were
intended to illustrate and breathe life into the ambitions of the overall political project.

91

The outcome of the strategic process has been the development of a common vision and
strategic  action  plan  comprising  a  number  of  strategic  action  fields,  such  as  business
development,  education,  infrastructure,  and  culture.    In  addition,  a  number  of  concrete
projects – the so-called “lighthouse” projects – have been planned (and some have even
been implemented) and are useful for testing and illustrating the ambitions of the project.
Thus,  the  STRING  partners  are  continuing  to  co-operate  and  build  on  the  established
process  and  structure  to  undertake  key  projects  within  the  strategic  action  plan.    As  the
project  has  built  upon  existing  collaborations  and  networks,  these  have  been  given  new
meaning.    By  the  involvement  of  a  wide  range  of  experts  throughout  the  process,  new
networks have been established and new opportunities created.

Reflecting on the process, it has been concluded that the management structure needs to
be  lean,  transparent  and  effective,  consisting  of  the  monitoring  of  activities,  a  steering
level  to  secure  continuous  coherence  between  goals  and  activities,  and  a  virtual  project
secretariat made up of officials from the STRING partners.

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY

Holst Jørgensen, Birte, Building European Cross-border Co-operation Structures. Institute
of Political Science Press, Copenhagen University, 1999/2.

Holst Jørgensen, Birte, Cross-border Co-operation and European Enlargement, The NEBI
Yearbook 2001/02, North European and Baltic Sea Integration, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

STRING,  Inventing  New  Geography.  Strategic  Possibilities  for  the  Southwestern  Baltic
Sea Area. County of Storstroem (leading partner), Nykoebing, 2000.

STRING,  On  the  Way  to  a  New  Geography.  County  of  Storstroem  (leading  partner),
Nykoebing, 2001

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS
Dr. Birte Holst Joergensen
RISOE NATIONAL LABORATORY
P.O. BOX 49
ROSKILDE
4000
DENMARK
+45 4677 5100
+45 4677 5199
birte.holst.joergensen@risoe.dk

Further information can also be obtained on the web at www.balticstring.net

92

CHAPTER 14- LOMBARDY (Italy)

Private-sector led foresight as a tool for informing the policy of regional governments aimed at
raising technological competitiveness.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
Lombardy  is  very  important  in  the  Italian  context  owing  to  its  geographical  position  and  its
history.  It  is  situated  in  Northern  Italy,  at  the  foot  of  the  Alps  and  in  the  centre  of  the  North
Italian  Plain,  at  the  intersection  of  the  main  routes  which  link  the  Mediterranean  area  and
central Europe.  Lombardy, which comes fourth in size among the Italian regions, has an area
of 23,860 square kilometres or represents 7.9% of the land area of Italy. However, with about 9
million  inhabitants  and  a  density  of  378  inhabitants  per  square  kilometre,  it  comes  first
regarding population figures,

The  Region  of  Lombardy  was  one  of  the  first  Italian  regions  to  industrialise.  The  most
technologically  advanced  sectors  are  present:  engineering  products,  metals,  chemicals,
rubber, printing and plastics.  Some of the most prestigious companies operate in Lombardy,
even if there has been a considerable decline of large industrial plants. There are very many
small and medium companies.

The  present  tendency  is  the  growth  of  services  in  the  urban  areas,  the  decentralisation  of
productive  processes,  the  spread  of  small-scale  entrepreneurs.  Artisan  activity  has  a  very
important role: engineering, wood and furniture, textiles and footwear and building are the most
developed sectors.

In  the  Lombardy  region,  there  has  been a  partial use  of  the  main  results  of  the  Technology
Foresight exercise carried out at national level by Fondazione Rosselli. The critical emerging
technologies  located  and  evaluated  by  the  national  exercise  were  confronted  with  the
technological  structure  of  some  industrial  sectors  within  Lombardy  in  order  to  assess  their
relevance for the medium  range  dynamics of competitiveness for  the firms  in  these  sectors.
This was initiated in 1997 by a number of organisations, including a local technical university,
an  industry  association,  the  Milan  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  a  leading  banking  group.
Results were made available in a final Report in 1998.

SSCCOOPPEE
The objectives of the study were set by the initiators, aiming at the identification of the actual
level  of  technological  competitiveness  of  the  most  important  sectors  of  Lombardy’s  industry.
Its  prospective  took  into  consideration  the  role  and  the  weight  of  technology  in  determining
economic  competitiveness,  as  well  as  the  most  relevant  future  developments  of  technology
affecting the structure (products, processes) of the region’s industrial sectors.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
The Study was carried out by a team of researchers at the Politecnico di Milano who relied on
strong co-operation with the entrepreneurial Associations, either of the sectors or of the areas
where  the  firms  were  concentrated.    The  methodology  used  was  based  on  brainstorming

93

meetings, data analysis and extrapolation, and interviews of top managers from a sample of
the most innovative and competitive firms in the region.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
The following steps were taken:
1.  Selection  of  the  first  6  sectors  to  be  analysed,  according  to  their  international
competitiveness  (export  sales/total  sales),  size  (total  employment)  and  their  technology
level.

2.  Evaluation  of  the  most  important  (strategic)  factors  affecting  the  actual  level  of
competitiveness of the firms in  these sectors and the role of technology among them.

3.  Identification of the dynamics of the importance of these factors in the medium term.
4.  Identification  of  those  technologies  that  were  foreseen  to  be  critical  in  determining  the
industrial structure (in terms of products and design and manufacturing processes) of the
selected sectors.

5.  Screening of the strategy adopted by the firms to cope with these technological innovations

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
Results  were  presented  to  the  Regional  Government  of  Lombardy  enabling  them  to  define
economic  policies  suited  to  the  development  needs  of  the  firms  in  the  selected  sectors.
Moreover,  results  were  also  used  by  the  banking  group  (involved  from  the  outset)  as
guidelines for giving financial support to the Lombardy industry. They also served to guide the
applied research activities within the Politecnico di Milano.  Even if the main outcomes of the
initiatives cited above yet still have to be realised, some important developments have already
shown, such as:
• 

the  Regional  Government  of  Lombardy  has  set  up  a  programme  supporting  the
establishment of “Centres of Excellence “ in some areas of the region (including one of
the industrial districts analysed within the study).

• 

the  banking  group  involved  has  set  up  a  specialised  fund  supporting  initiatives
(projects and structures) for technology transfer to SME’s in Lombardy.

The  interaction  among  researchers,  technologists  and  top  managers  initiated  through  the
study  has  proved  to be  useful  in  inducing  the  latter to think  in  an  organic  and  strategic  way
about the future of their firms. This applies especially regarding the new and often unexpected
technologies  that  were  foreseen  to  be  critical  for  their  future  economic  performance.    As  a
consequence,  the  sponsoring  institutions  decided  to  support  the  extension  of  the  study,  in
order to include further relevant sectors.  This activity is ongoing.

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS::
Professor Claudio Roveda
Fondazione Rosselli
Via Fucini, 5
Milan 20133
Italy
Tel. +39 02 26681707 - +39 02 70636071
Fax +39 02 2361614
E-mail: fondazione.rosselli@iol.it

94

CHAPTER 15 - NORTH-EAST ENGLAND (UK)

Developing and embedding a broad-based regional Foresight consciousness and capability.

BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD
Situated  on  the  East  coast  of  England  facing  Northern  Europe  and  Scandinavia,  the  North
East  is  a  largely  rural  area.  Most  of  its  population  of  2.6  million  live  along  the  three  great
commercial rivers of the Tyne, Wear and Tees where economic development is concentrated.
The Region consists of four Sub-Regions: Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, County Durham
and Tees Valley.

The Region's economy until relatively recently was based on coal. The decline of the traditional
industry of coal mining, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering has necessitated significant
economic  restructuring.    Today,  the  Region's  strengths  lie  in  automotives,  electronics,
advanced engineering, including offshore oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and metal
manufacturing.  Levels of unemployment are higher than the UK average.

The need for Foresight was felt to be particularly acute here because of the inward migration of
large foreign owned firms to replace traditional activities such as coal mining, steel and heavy
industry.  The resulting shortage of R&D facilities, indigenous entrepreneurs and creative new
product design caused concern amongst policy makers who felt that the region was heading
towards a less competitive future despite the short term rise in manufacturing employment.

During  its  first  phase  (1996  -  1997),  the  foresight  was  managed  by  Newcastle  University
(Regional Centre for Innovation and Design - RCID). In its second phase (1998 - present) the
responsibility  for  running  the  programme  has  passed  to  the  Regional  Technology  Centre  in
Sunderland (RTC North).

SSCCOOPPEE
The primary aim has been to increase the competitive standing of regional industry and society
through improved appreciation, anticipation and exploitation of future developments in science
and technology.

The programme is structured around four objectives, which determinate the different focuses:
•  The  ‘flagship’  programme  is  cross-sectoral  and  includes  quality  of  life  issues  (age,
physical  environment,  crime,  transport  etc)  -  they  are  driven  by  the  FORUM
membership and its quarterly meetings.

•  The ‘sector panels’ are more focused and include groups for IT, sensors, engineering
training,  manufacturing,  energy,  marine,  chemicals,  leisure  &  learning  and  a  cross-
sectoral  group.  The  intention  is  that  these  should  all  become  fixed  time  scale  and
mission  based.    These  sectors  were  identified  by  a  scoping  study  carried  out  by
CURDS  (Newcastle  University),  which  attempted  to  match  Foresight  issues  with
regional requirements.

• 

‘Technology  Scan’  is  about  keeping  abreast  of  all  new  technologies  but  particularly
those that have great potential to affect the regional economy.

95

• 

‘Industrial  outreach’  is  perhaps  the  most  difficult  area  because  it  deals  with  how
Foresight can be made relevant to SMEs including audits and opportunity reviews as
part of a structured methodology for future competitiveness.

Several  hundred  organisations  have  been  involved  both  in  consultation  and  operational
activity.

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG  MMOOMMEENNTTUUMM
The first phase of the project was specifically dedicated to build momentum. Over the period
March  1996  to  December  1997,  a  wide  ranging  dissemination  exercise  was  carried  out  to
publicise the results of the national programme and options for regional implementation.  This
resulted in a much wider appreciation of the objectives of Foresight and the specific benefits to
be  derived  from  participation  by  different  interest  groups  within  the  business  and  academic
communities.  The fact that the RTC North took responsibility for the programme in 1998 has
achieved  better  access  for  participants  but  also  induced  a  high  degree  of  interaction  which
takes place with SMEs from that location.

Vigorous leadership via focus groups in all the focused areas resulted in the establishment of
active  Foresight  networks.  Through  a  combination  of  surveys  and  events,  they  have
addressed specific topics, some of which were subsequently worked up into collaborative bids
between industry and HEIs to access funding for innovation and product development.

SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE  AANNDD  OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN
There are four levels of governance.  The Steering Committee acts like a board of directors
and has overall authority. It meets every two months and has equal representation from senior
figures  in  industry,  academia  and  development  organisations.    The  Executive  Board  is  a
subset  of  the  Steering  Committee  that  meets  more  frequently  (monthly)  to  implement  policy
but  not  to  create  it.    The  Technical  Evaluation  Panel  is  responsible  for  assessing  funding
applications for SME Foresight projects.  Finally, the Foresight Forum is the advisory body that
guides the ‘flagship’ programme via its quarterly meetings.  Membership of the latter is open to
all who wish to join.  The others are all by appointment.

Sector  panels  are  organised  separately  and  are  normally  chaired  by  an  industrialist  who  is
supported by the Coordinator.  Reports are presented at Steering Committee meetings.

MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
There  is  no  Delphi  activity  in  the  North  East  but  a  lot  of  other  methods  are  used.  Scenario
workshops  have  proved  very  popular,  both  in  relation  to  the  offshore  sector  and  vocational
education.  Opportunity mapping has occurred in Energy and Environment sectors.  High-tech
seminars have been organized in IT, communications, chemical sensors, nano-technology and
other specialist areas.  Some events are multi-faceted incorporating a speaking program with
an exhibition, workshops and demonstrations. The choice of method is generally a matter for
the  committee  or  panel  concerned.  In  the  flagship  program  the  Co-ordinator  decides.
Foresight North East offers project based support to SMEs in identifying future R&D and new
business opportunities.

96

OOUUTTPPUUTTSS  AANNDD  OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS
Soft  outputs  include  the  knowledge  transfer  and  improved  working  relationships  that  result
from network activity.  These are very valuable but difficult to quantify.  Outputs of the Forum
meetings  have  been  most  influential  on  regional  policy.    GONE  representatives  have  made
funding available for pilot projects as a direct consequence of such meetings.  ONE North East
uses  these  meetings  to  forge  a  link  between  Foresight  and  its  own  Strategic  Futures
programme.

In general, expectations have been satisfied. As regards the events, individuals do seem to get
a  lot  out  of  the  scenario  workshops  because  they  permit  original  thinking  with  like-minded
persons outside the organisation.  Formal seminars do not generate the same level of interest
unless the technology has ‘curiosity value’.  A good example was a micro-engineering lecture
and  demonstration  provided  by  a  Swiss  engineering  organisation.  Concerning  the  SME
programme, detailed project work with companies tends to follow a similar pattern.  In the early
stages  the  client  is  interested  in  technology  per  se,  and  in  information  about  its  own  core
business.  In the later stages the client becomes more interested in market issues, regulation
and the core business of suppliers and customers.

A  specific  web  site  "Foresight  North  East"    (www.foresight.org.uk)  has  been  launched  to
disseminate  the  Foresight  activity  and  to  support  the  continuous  development  of  the
programme.

CCOONNTTAACCTT  DDEETTAAIILLSS::
Mr Gordon Ollivere
RTC North Ltd
1 Hylton Park, Wessington Way
Sunderland SR5 3HD
UK
Tel: +44 191 516 4400
Fax: +44 191 516 4401
E-mail: Gordon.ollivere@rtcnorth.co.uk

97

98

Annexe – Foresight Methods
Annexe – Foresight Methods
Annexe – Foresight Methods
Annexe – Foresight Methods

Most methods used in Foresight studies stem from the disciplines of forecasting and Futures
studies. Some of the methods described in this Annex were developed in the 1950s and ‘60s
as tools to deal with military strategies and technologies, and to elicit opinions on issues that
were difficult to analyse using scientific methods (i.e. the Delphi method).

Chapter  2  provided  many  points  of  introduction  into  the  use  of  techniques  and  methods  in
Foresight.  These can help to structure information concerning the future and may help – or
hinder – Foresight being used as an interactive approach.

Before  discussing  broad  groups  of  Foresight  method,  and  some  of  the  specific  methods  in
more detail, we briefly introduce an approach that we often find employed in organisations with
a  forward-looking  outlook  –  environmental  scanning,  which  provides  helpful  background
intelligence for many types of Foresight activity.

EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL  SSCCAANNNNIINNGG
Environmental scanning systems  provide  early  warning  about  important  changes  and detect
‘weak signals’ that indicate plans should be amended. Scanning involves a commitment to a
continuing process of monitoring change, with an orientation toward longer-term issues.

It is important at the outset to be clear why the scanning system is to be set up, the level of
involvement  required  and how  the  results  are  to  be  used.    This  method  allows  finding  early
indications of possible important future developments to gain as much lead-time as possible.

There are various scanning techniques. Often it is a matter of an individual or a small set of
individuals entrusted with the task, and reporting regularly back to the organisation (sometimes
with  talks  by  outside  experts,  videos,  etc.)    Material  and  information  can  be  identified
systematically  by  searching  the  Web  and  on-line  databases  and  through  the  scanning  of
media  and  preparation  of  literature  reviews.    Such  a  role  may  also  be  contracted  out  to
consultants.    Another  approach  to  scanning  the  environment  for  changes  is  the  use  of  an
expert panel. Participants in such a panel could be asked in a systematic manner to provide
observations and judgements about important developments that are underway or expected.
The  composition  of  the  panel  could  change  over  time  with  rotation,  which  is  encouraged  to
bring in fresh views into the process. Communications media can take many forms.

Scanning can be used to inform the management process, enabling it to consider issues at an
early  stage  rather  than  reacting  to  them  when  they  become  critical.    It  is  not  a  Foresight
method as such, more a necessary background to the topic of Foresight.

99

BBBBBBBBBBBBrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddd            ccccccccccccllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss            ooooooooooooffffffffffff            FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt            mmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooddddddddddddssssssssssss

Many tools and many variants of the same tool are used in Foresight exercises.   Chapter 2
distinguished  between  explorative  and  normative  methods  and  between  qualitative  and
quantitative methods.  In this Annex, we illustrate Foresight methods by classifying them based
on three criteria:

Criteria

Methods

1.  Methods that are based on eliciting expert

knowledge to develop long-term strategies.

2.  Quantitative methods that make use of

statistics and other data

3.  Methods to identify key points of action to

determine planning strategies

-  Delphi method
-  Expert panels
-  Brainstorming
-  Mindmapping
-  Scenario analysis workshops
-  SWOT analysis

-  Trend extrapolation
-  Simulation modelling
-  Cross impact analysis
-  System dynamics

-  Critical / key technologies
-  Relevance trees
-  Morphological analysis

100

FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt            mmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooddddddddddddssssssssssss            bbbbbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeedddddddddddd            oooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnn            tttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeee            uuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee            ooooooooooooffffffffffff
eeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee

While many people know about the specific topics addressed in Foresight activities, relatively
few  people  have  a  well-informed  view  of  the  longer-term  developments  that  are  likely  or
possible in these topics.  Experts should be able to address more fundamental questions, and
to  know  of  what  problems,  innovations,  and  opportunities  are  arising  in  their  areas.
Sometimes these will be practitioners, sometimes researchers.  Some  experts  know  a  great
deal about their subject area but are relatively narrow, with little knowledge of developments
even in adjacent fields; some find it difficult to communicate with non-experts, and some are
convinced that their sort of expertise alone is sufficient to address all of the problems posed by
Foresight (so that there is no need to encourage wider participation – the only issue is seen as
being a matter of disseminating their own views).

Often it will be necessary to sample a broad range of expert opinion, to inform the Foresight
activity.  There may be various reasons for this:
•  Critical knowledge is widely dispersed in (and beyond) your region
• 

It is quite possible that someone will have knowledge of relevant material that is not yet
common knowledge, even among experts

•  Broad consultation is useful for identifying recruits for networking activities
•  Broad consultation can help establish the legitimacy of the Foresight exercise.

Consultation  -  through  questionnaires,  workshops,  Internet,  etc.  –  may  be  carried  out  at  a
number of points in the  Foresight  process.    On other occasions  it  will  be  necessary  to  work
more intensively with smaller groups of experts, to stimulate dialogue, to deepen the analysis
and produce reflective conclusions.

In either case, a critical task will be that of identifying relevant expertise.   It can be very helpful,
for example, to use reputational approaches – rather than rely on the initial set of candidates
that might be thought of, to use questionnaires asking these people to nominate others who
they  believe  to  be  particularly  knowledgeable  in  specified  areas  of  expertise.    A  snowball
survey involves contacting the people nominated by your first  contacts,  then  contacting  their
nominations,  and  so  on.    Co-nomination  approaches  may  be  employed,  in  which  the
repeated naming of particular people as expert in particular fields is used for guidance in the
selection of experts. However, it is possible to find experts in existing databases and through
the internet.

Experts may be:
•  Accessed via mail, email or other “remote” approaches.
•  Recruited into face-to-face encounters, workshops, conferences, Panels, etc.

101

And they may be:
•  Used as a “passive” source of data, so that their views are elicited and collected, but

they have little say in these processes

• 

Involved much more interactively, so that they play a more creative role in determining
what knowledge is relevant and how it could be used.

Putting these two dimensions together, we can locate some of the main techniques as follows:

Experts are:
Mainly passive

Remotely sampled
Conventional postal surveys
(e.g. most Delphi studies).
Interviews.

Highly interactive

Participation in computer
conferences, remote
groupworking.

Physically present
Attendance mainly as
observers at workshops,
conferences.
Delphi and similar surveys as
group events at conferences,
etc.

Expert Panels; Scenario
workshops; Brainstorming

We examine some of the most often utilised methods below.

DDEELLPPHHII  MMEETTHHOODD
Delphi involves a survey of people believed to be experts in the areas being studied.  In the
most  common form  of  Delphi, the  opinions sought  concern  the  particular  developments  that
are likely to happen. Such Delphis have been widely used in Technology Foresight studies and
other  exercises.  But  there  are  many  other  types  of  Delphi  possible.    They  may  focus  on
different topics – on social developments, for example.  Instead of trying to forecast dates of
development,  Delphis  can  be  constructed  to  help  identify  and  prioritise  policy  goals,  for
example.

One feature that makes Delphi different from an ordinary opinion survey is that essentially the
same questionnaire should be filled out several times, with the respondents receiving feedback
on the set of earlier responses.  The idea is that the respondents can learn from the views of
others, without being unduly influenced by the people who talk loudest at meetings, who have
most  prestige,  etc.  Ideally,  significant  dissenters  from  a  developing  consensus  would  be
required to explain their reasons for their views, and this would serve as useful intelligence for
others.  (Unfortunately, to carry this out is time consuming, and is quite often missed out from
Delphi studies.)  Often the goal (and the result) of a Delphi study is to achieve convergence of
opinions.    There  are  even  implementations  of  Delphi  that  are  explicitly  designed  to  identify
different  clusters  of  opinion,  rather  than  zones  of  consensus.    In  practice,  some  so-called
Delphis  do  not  make  much,  if  any,  use  of  iterations  of  the  questionnaire;  these  are  really
opinion surveys misappropriating the name “Delphi”.

102

Delphi surveys are fairly time-consuming and labour intensive, and need expert preparation.  A
poorly  designed  Delphi  will  attract  antagonism  and  illicit  poor  information,  and  may  fuel
criticisms of the overall Foresight activity with which it is associated.

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??
To predict and assess emerging developments where there is no empirical database, where
external  factors  are  likely  to  have  a  determining  effect  and  where  social  arguments  may
dominate economic or technical considerations.  Delphi is very useful to collect and synthesise
opinions. Delphi inquiries are a valuable tool of communication for exchanging opinions on a
topic, and in a sense the Delphi method is a controlled debate.

DDooeess  DDeellpphhii  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
Delphi can be used for making tacit knowledge of experts about the future more explicit and for
longer-term assessments, for which extrapolations make no sense. It can help  to  gather  the
opinions of a larger group of experts and in fields where there is not a lot of evidence about the
developments and experts often do not dare to explain their real opinion. Delphi inquiries are a
valuable  tool  of  communication  for  exchanging  opinions  on  a  topic.  It  is  conducted
anonymously in order not to let anyone lose face in case of opinion change. The domination of
single persons is avoided.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
In  general  Delphi  inquiries  are  addressed  to  experts  (i.e.  they  constitute  the  panel  of
respondents) that participate by answering to the questionnaire. The definition of ‘expert’ can
be very broad.

Requirements
•  Selection of the subject to forecast –  It  should  be one  where  there  is  lack  of  data on

HHooww  ddooeess  DDeellpphhii  wwoorrkk??

future trends.

•  Selection  of  the  panel  of  experts  (problem  of  bias,  which  is  present  in  every  panel
group) – care is needed in recruiting the panel and the criteria for selection should be
set  out.  Before  an  expert  agrees  to  take  part  in  a  Delphi  inquiry,  he/she  should
understand  the  purpose  of  the  inquiry  and  should  be  aware  that  his/  her  expertise
should be made available in different rounds of the inquiry. The Delphi method has an
iterative  nature.  If  the  exercise  is  to  maintain  its  credibility  the  tendency  for  panel
members to drop out after the first round should be minimised.

•  Clarity  of  the  questions  –  questions  should  be  sharp  and  answerable.  In  general
questions are related to the date of occurrence of an event or development, what are
the possible constraints (economical, technological, social, political) to the occurrence
of event or development.  Before sending the questionnaire out more widely, it should
be piloted among a small sample of experts to refine it.

•  Administration of the questionnaire – the questionnaire should be administrated from a
person  that  is  responsible  for  the  management  of  the  questionnaire  and  to
communicate results to the panel members.

•  Analysis  of  responses  –  results  are  presented  in  a  statistical  manner.  A  common
approach is as follows.  For each question the median (i.e. the central tendency) and
interquartile  ranges  (i.e.  the  middle  half  of  the  range  outside  which  lie  the  upper  and
lower 25%, or quarters, of the range) are calculated. This information is the basis of the

103

second  round  of  the  inquiry  and  it  is  sent  to  the  panel  members,  who  are  asked  to
review  their  estimates  in  the  light  of  the  group  opinion.  Members  who  maintain  an
estimate  outside  the  interquartile  ranges  are  asked  to  provide  a  brief  justification  for
their opinion. A new median and interquartile ranges can be calculated and either used
as  the  final  forecast  or  circulated  again  for  further  refinement.  The  questionnaire  can
circulate until convergence of opinions is reached, but a Delphi inquiry should not have
more than four rounds.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
What goes in: Expert based opinion in an anonymous questionnaire among a defined sample
of experts.

Data  treatment:  Statistical  analysis  but  also  qualitative  assessment  of  results.  The  data
treatment is quantitative; the input consists of ratings and thus quantifying qualitative issues.

What comes out: Most commonly, Delphi produces a prediction of a date of occurrence of a
sequence of events and assessments of the topic with different criteria.  However, other types
of judgement may be elicited – the importance of goals, the drivers of change, and practically
anything else that might be of interest to study.

Normally, the number of respondents is small, Delphis are not intended to produce statistically
significant results. In fact, the outcomes provided by a panel do not predict the response of a
larger  population  or  even  a  different  Delphi  panel.  The  outcomes  represent  the  view  of  a
particular group of experts.

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
In  the  preparatory  phase,  creativity  techniques  (e.g.  brainstorming,  6-3-5  or  others)  or
scenarios  are  used.  Data  from  literature  research,  patent  analysis  or  bibliometrics  can  be
added. In the analytical phase, different statistical methods (calculation, rankings, correlations)
or  the  re-building  of  scenarios  as  well  as  pseudo-roadmaps  can  be  used.  For  comments  or
additional  explanations,  qualitative  analyses  are  necessary.  SWOT  analysis  can  be  based
upon the results.

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
Delphi studies are difficult to perform well. A great deal of attention must be given to the choice
of participants, the questionnaire must be meticulously prepared and tested to avoid ambiguity.
It  is  a  time  consuming  method  (i.e.  a  single  Delphi  round  can  easily  require  three  weeks;  a
three round Delphi questionnaire requires at least three to four months including preparation
and time to analyse outcomes. Some participants drop out during the process (especially after
the first round). In addition, further qualitative assessment of Delphi inquiry may produce useful
information, however this step is often not carried out due to lack of time.
Other drawbacks include:
•  As  in  all  panels  or  expert  groups,  the  opinions  will  reflect  the  set  of  participants
involved: a narrow set of criteria for these may lead to unrepresentative views or miss
out important sources of knowledge.

•  To  gain  persons  to  answer  a  questionnaire  twice  or  more  often  is  difficult  and  needs
incentives (e.g. that the experts receive  the  results). The  dropout-rate  increases  after
the second/ third round so that current studies are often limited to preparation and two
rounds.

104

•  Single  opinions  that  might  be  of  special  value  are  also  pooled  and  normally  ignored.
Only the accumulated results are published to save anonymity. It is difficult to find out
reasons for extreme answers later on, as this anonymity has to be respected.

EEXXPPEERRTT  PPAANNEELLSS
Panels  of  sectoral  and/or  technological  experts  are  commonly  used  in  national  Foresight
studies.  The constitution of such Panels, in itself, is not a ‘methodology’, but specific methods
may  be  employed  to  motivate  the  panel,  assign  tasks,  and  elicit  sharing  and  further
development of knowledge.  Panel work is highly significant in terms of:
•  The gathering of relevant information and knowledge;
•  The stimulation of new insights and creative views and strategies for the future, as well

as new networks;

•  The diffusion of the Foresight process and results to much wider constituencies;
•  The overall impact of Foresight in terms of follow-up action.

Problems with Panels may relate to:
•  The selection of panellists – the selection of candidate panellists can be done through
systematic  literature  searches,  co-nomination  (e.g.  nomination  from  professional
organisations).  The  qualification  of  experts  can  stem  from  important  qualification  in
their  discipline,  experience,  work  and  interests.  It  is  also  important  to  search  for
creative thinkers with diverse viewpoints from around the world.

•  Lack of motivation;
•  Over-dominance of strong personalities;
•  Dangers  associated  with  too  narrow  representation  (little  challenging  thinking,
perceptions that vested interests are in charge, the “capture” of independent members
by well-resourced interest groups).

An expert panel cannot produce a statistically significant outcome. The results provided by a
panel  will  not  predict  the  response  of  a  larger  population  or  even  the  findings  of  a  different
panel. They will represent the synthesised opinions of the particular group, no more, no less.
We  set  out  below  some  methods  frequently  used  with  Panels  and  expert  groups  –
Brainstorming  and SWOT analysis,  which  are  techniques  that  can  be  used  in  brainstorming
and scenario building, and Scenario Analysis Workshops themselves.

BBRRAAIINNSSTTOORRMMIINNGG
Brainstorming  is  a  widely  used  group  method.    It  involves  a  period  of  freethinking,  which  is
used to articulate ideas.  These should be collated and written down without critical comment,
though ideas may be spun off from earlier ideas.  Individual ideas will not normally be subject
to  critique  or  further  analysis  until  a  sufficient  number  have  been  generated.    This  should
reduce participants’ inhibitions about throwing out “wild” ideas.  Typically these ideas will then
be  grouped,  prioritised,  etc.,  and  taken  as  the  basis  for  more  analytic  discussion.    This  is  a
useful  technique  for  expert  committees  and  consultation  management  groups.    Several
computer systems are now available as alternatives to the traditional use of whiteboards and
flipcharts to record and display the ideas.

105

WWhhaatt  iiss  bbrraaiinnssttoorrmmiinngg??
The  main  objective  of  brainstorming  is  to  elicit  ideas  from  a  group  of  people.  Used  in  a
structured  manner,  this  tool  can  be  highly  effective  to  move  participants  out  of  conflict  and
toward  consensus.  Brainstorming  is  founded  on  the  principle  that  the  quantity  of  ideas
increases their quality. This technique has the following basic components:
•  Generating as many creative solutions as possible to tackle a problem;
•  Listing every idea presented without comment or evaluation - deferring the judgement
of  ideas  improves  the  volume  of  participant  input  and  consequently  the  value  and
encourage creativity;

•  Subsequently,  grouping  ideas  to  reduce  redundancy,  allow  for  related  ideas  to  be

brought together;

•  Evaluating or assign priorities to the ideas

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??
Brainstorming  brings  new  ideas  on  how  to  tackle  a  particular  problem  –  the  freethinking
atmosphere encourages creativity, even imperfectly developed thoughts may push the thinking
of other participants.

Problems  are  defined  better  as  questions  arise  –  alternatives  appear  in  a  new  or  different
perspective and novel approaches to an issue can arise during the process.

Brainstorming helps to reduce conflicts – it helps participants to see other points of view and
possibly change their perspective on problems. All participants have equal status and an equal
opportunity to participate.

DDooeess  bbrraaiinnssttoorrmmiinngg  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
It  can  be  used  every  time  when  large  quantity  of  information  is  generated  before  problem
solving,  decision  making,  or  planning  -  and  in  scenario  analysis.    Brainstorming  helps
participants to move into a working  group mode, by  “breaking  the  ice”  and  allowing  unusual
ideas to be expressed.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
Anyone can participate in a brainstorming session. It is useful to encourage participants from
diverse backgrounds in the issue to be discussed. Effective brainstorming sessions are small
(from 7 to 12 participants). Larger groups should be divided into smaller groups.

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
•  Requirements: a facilitator; a way to record all the ideas/information (e.g. a facilitator,
and/or  a  whiteboard,  flipchart,  etc.  –  there  are  now  also  computer-based  group
decision  aid  software  tools  that  support  brainstorming  and  other  activities  described
here)

•  Procedure:  Introduce  the  topic  and  the  purpose  of  the  specific  brainstorming  session
(briefing information might be sent in advance to participants). Begin the discussion by
asking a specific open-ended question to focus the discussion (there is no rule for the
length of a session, sometimes the group should define in advance a target number of
ideas). When the group feels comfortable that there are no more ideas to add, revisit

106

the list of ideas, group the ideas together, ask clarification or more information on what
was meant by each item.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
Feed  the  suggestions  developed  into  later  stages  of  group  work,  or  into  other  steps  in  the
policy process.

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
The  gathering  of  ideas  can  be  managed  by  using  different  types  of  techniques  to  boost
productivity of brainstorming. For example among the most common used techniques there is:
role-playing,  mind-mapping,  story  boarding,  card  clusters.  In  addition,  brainstorming  can  be
part of expert panels

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
Sometimes  the  ideas  produced  are  unworkable.  The  outcomes  depend  on  the  ability  of  the
facilitator of maintaining the discussion alive. Opponents may refuse to consider each other’s
ideas.  It  is  important to  explain  to  participants  how  the  results  will  be  used  to  underline  that
they are not wasting their time.

AA  nnoottee  oonn  MMIINNDDMMAAPPPPIINNGG::
Mindmapping is a technique applied to brainstorming and other group discussion methods (for
example where people are talking about the relationships between a large number of factors).
It allows for quickly charting group’s ideas in logical groupings, even when ideas are given in a
non-sequential  manner.  This  technique  allows  to  efficiently  brainstorm  for  ideas,  and  at  the
same  time  create  a  skeletal  framework  for  later  categorisation  of  the  information  generated.
Mindmapping can be used in planning, identifying customer groups. Mindmapping works well
when issues have many components and subcomponents. This technique is a non-linear way
of  outlining  information.  It  is  possible  to  implement  it  with  ‘pen  and  paper’,  but  there  are
available dedicated software tools5 which allow us to visualise in real time the developments of
the brainstorming.

SSWWOOTT   ((SSTTRREENNGGTTHHSS   WWEEAAKKNNEESSSSEESS   OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTIIEESS   AANNDD   TTHHRREEAATTSS))
AANNAALLYYSSIISS

WWhhaatt  iiss  SSWWOOTT??
SWOT  analysis  is  an  analytical  tool,  which  should  be  used  to  categorise  significant
environmental  factors  both  internal  and  external  of  an  organisation.  SWOT  should  not  be
viewed as a static analytical tool with emphasis solely on its output.  It should be used as a
dynamic part of the management and business development process.

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??
SWOT analysis involves the collection and portrayal of information about internal and external
factors  that  have,  or  may  have,  an  impact  on  the  evolution  of  an  organisation/  business.  It
generally  provides  a  list  of  an  organisation’s  strengths  and  weaknesses  as  indicated  by  an
analysis  of  its  resources  and  capabilities,  plus  a  list  of  the  threats  and  opportunities  that  an

5 For example http://www.mindjet.com/index.htm

107

                                                
analysis of its environment identifies. Strategic logic requires that the future pattern of actions
to be taken should match strengths with opportunities ward off threats and seek to overcome
weaknesses.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
People directed involved in various hierarchical levels of decision making in an organisation/
business,  or  a  wider  sample  of  actors  if  the  SWOT  concerns  a  whole  region  or  nation.
Representatives from a variety of stakeholders groups should be involved, as they would bring
in the analysis their own particular perspectives.

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
The  SWOT  is  often  portrayed  as  a  2x2  matrix  and  it  identifies  through  means  of  a  chart  a
reasonable overview of major issues that can be taken into account in subsequently drawing
up strategic plans of an organisation.

The development of Opportunity and Threats matrices encourage an assessment of the likely
probability and impact any factor may have on an organisation/ business. It is possible to apply
a  scoring  system  to  assess  the  importance  of  factors.  A  factor  that  score  highly  on  both
‘probability of occurrence’ and on ‘likely impact on the organisation/ business’, would have to
be one worthy of close attention and play a significant part in the development of a strategic
plan.  Similarly,  Strengths  and  Weaknesses  can  be  assessed  against  a  scoring  system  that
allows the factors to be identified according to their significance (i.e. major, minor, neutral) and
level of importance (high, medium, low).

It  is  possible  to  represent  this  analysis  in  a  Performance-  Importance  matrix  that  highlights
those factors which are both important and in which performance of the organisation/ business
is low. It is towards these factors that strategy should be addressed.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
SWOT analysis can be used as one step in the process of scenario building. It can be used
prior to a Delphi survey to help focus the Delphi questionnaire.

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
SWOT  analysis  is  often  used  in  brainstorming,  with  scenario  analysis  and  with  Delphi
technique.

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
Inadequate  definition  of  factors;  Lack  of  prioritisation  of  factors;  Over-subjectivity  in  the
generation of factors: compiler bias.

SSCCEENNAARRIIOO  AANNAALLYYSSIISS  WWOORRKKSSHHOOPPSS
Scenario  methods  can  be  extrapolative  or  normative  (see  Part  2  for  a  discussion  of  these
terms). The critical point is that the scenarios themselves must be internally consistent pictures
of  future  possibilities,  and  prove  useful  for  envisaging  the  implications  of  uncertainties.
Scenarios are tools for synthesis, structuring thinking, and presentational purposes.

There are many scenario development methods, and scenario workshops are just one way in
which  they  are  produced.      (Often  scenarios are  produced by  smaller  expert  groups,  and  in
some  cases  this  can  be a  valuable approach – for example  where  there  is  an  explicit  effort

108

being  made  to  develop  and  contrast  scenarios  based  on  different  theoretical  perspectives.
Scenarios may be used as part of modelling exercises, where special efforts will be required to
frame  them  in  terms  of  the  parameters  of  the  model.)    There  are  dangers  with  scenario
approaches, in that the end-states developed may be perceived as the only possible futures –
or,  often,  that  one  scenario  is  implicitly  the  “most  likely”  scenario,  with  a  couple  of  minor
variations deviating from it.

This  can facilitate  systematic  comparison  of  different  scenarios,  and  force  the  developers  of
the  scenarios  to  achieve  consistency  in  terms  of  the  elements  of  each  scenario  that  are
addressed.

WWhhaatt  aarree  sscceennaarriiooss??
Scenarios  consist  of  visions  of  future  states  and  courses  of  development,  organised  in  a
systematic  way  as  texts,  charts,  etc.    There  are  many  ways  of  preparing  scenarios,  but  a
common  method  involves  groupwork.  Scenario  planning  is  organisational  learning.  This
method consists of organising information and future possibilities into alternative visions for the
future. It is especially useful to comprehend events that seem to contain a mixture of unrelated
information.  Scenario methods  can  be  extrapolative  or  normative,  depending  on  the  starting
point.  The  scenarios  are  pictures  of  future  possibilities  and  are  composed  of  a  mixture  of
quantifiable  and  non-quantifiable  components  arranged  as  logical  sequences  of  events.  A
scenario is a means to represent a future reality in order to shed light on current action in view
of possible and desirable futures.

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??
It helps to shape the virtually infinite number of possible futures that could be described down
to a manageable size of three to four ‘futures possibilities’ on a specific organisation’s future.
Scenario planning aims for the intervention of strategy and the testing of related organisational
characteristics against multiple representations of the future of business environment.

DDoo  sscceennaarriiooss  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
Scenarios can be used any time when the number of factors to be considered and the degree
of uncertainty about the futures are high to build alternative images of the future that might be
a useful hint to select the way forward.

Scenario planning is an approach dealing with the following steps:
•  Acknowledgement of aims;
•  Assessment of the organisation’s characteristics including its capability to change;
•  Assessment of the environment, current and future;
•  Assessment of the fit between the two;
•  Development of policies and decisions and actions to improve the fit.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
Participants should include the final users of the scenarios, and people knowledgeable of the
socio-economic contexts of the region. Diversity of experience is an asset to the success of the
scenario  exercise.  The  scenario  building  helps  participants  to  gain  a  new  understanding  of
how change could be managed as a result of the scenario building experience. Also external
people can be included especially original thinkers.

109

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
Scenarios would work only if they meet five conditions that instil rigor: relevance, coherence,
plausibility, importance and transparency. Numerous methods have been developed to create
scenarios.  Most  approaches  recognise  the  need  to  understand  the  system  under  study  and
identify the trends, issues, and events that are critical to this system.

In general, independently of the process chosen, there are some basic requirements:
a)  A scenario planner

b)  A group of participants (ideally 7 to 12)

c)  Time (at least two or three days to be divided in different sessions)

Often, creating scenarios has been compared to the process of writing a movie script where a
main  idea  is  formulated  and  characters  are  developed  around  it.  There  are  a  number  of
questions  that  are  considered  in  scenarios  building:  What  are  the  driving  forces?  What  is
uncertain?  What  is  inevitable?  Around  these  questions  the  following  steps  can  be  defined:
identify the focal issue or decision; identify the key forces and trends in the environment; rank
the driving forces and trends by importance and uncertainty; select the scenario logics; fleshing
out the scenarios; assess the implications; and select the leading indicators and signposts for
monitoring purposes.

Scenario  workshops  are  one  possible  way  to  build  scenarios.  Firstly,  a  small  group  will  be
constituted – or sometimes, parallel small groups will explore different scenarios.  A process
will be used to obtain views as to critical choices and drivers that could differentiate or lead to
distinctive futures.  The most important of these will then be selected and used as the basis of
an  elaboration  of  the  sorts  of  events  that  can  unfold,  the  sorts  of  end-states  that  might  be
reached.    The  group  will  then  typically  be  requested  to  consider  what  the  strategic  options
might be for the specific scenario to be achieved, or for the key actors to be able to cope with
the situation represented.  A commonly used method for eliciting relevant drivers is the use of
STEEPV  –  people  are  asked  to  identify  Social,  Technological,  Economic,  Environmental,
Political, and Value-Based factors and issues.  Some scenario workshops work from scratch,
some begin with an existing set of scenarios and use these as a starting point, a set of images
of the future to elaborate, or simply something to criticise!

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
This method can provide planners with one point estimate of innumerable possibilities of what
the future  unfolds. This  method allows  participants  to develop  plans that  are  viable  over  the
wide range of possible futures also with a process that helps manage uncertainty. This method
helps participants to radically alter the way they think about the future. Optimisation against a
specific future target is replaced by a balanced evaluation of the range of strategies that may
be  required.  Participants  understand  better  the  alternative  needs  of  futures  and  are  able  to
develop better-informed strategies and policy options.

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
Scenarios  are  often  used  in  combination  with  SWOT  analysis  (strengths,  weaknesses,
opportunities and threats). SWOT it is very useful to provide the scenario planner with a useful
insight into the strategic agenda of the final user of the scenarios.

110

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
Users may find difficult to deal with multiple images of plausible futures.  Some scenarios stay
at the level of broad generalities lacking supporting analysis and quantification, and are thus
not very operational.  However, the method can be employed in a more rigorous manner, e.g.
with extensive use of tables and other techniques for systematisation of the analysis.

QQQQQQQQQQQQuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeee            FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt            MMMMMMMMMMMMeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooddddddddddddssssssssssss

Numerical data, of many types, are useful in thinking about longer-term developments, and to
a  certain  extent  they  can  be  useful  ways  of  presenting  Foresight  results,  too.    There  are
several limitations for such data, for example:
•  Some things are hard  to  represent  numerically.  But this  does not mean  that  they  are
necessarily  less  tangible,  less  significant,  or  less  amenable  to  serious  analysis  or
appraisal within Foresight.

•  The quantifiable elements of a phenomenon should not be taken as encompassing all
of the phenomenon (or even all of the most important features of the phenomenon) –
but  often  they  are,  and  often,  for  example,  attention  will  be  focused  on  the  graphical
elements of a report.

•  Not everyone  is  comfortable  with  working  with  or  even  reading  statistical  information,
and  some  people  are  extremely  suspicious  of  “lies,  damned  lies  and  statistics”,
knowing that often so-called hard facts are actually misleading – based, for  example,
on  inappropriate  samples,  using  inadequate  indicators,  or  being  misinterpreted  in
various  ways.    Certainly  it  is  important  to  use  reliable  sources  (e.g.  official  statistics)
and to seek the advice of independent experts as to the use and presentation of such
data.

•  Good  quality  data  are  often  not  available,  or  not  sufficiently  up-to-date  to  inform  a
Foresight exercise – and the production of new data may be costly or excessively time-
consuming.

•  Some advanced statistical methods and modelling techniques are highly complex, and
relatively few people are able to scrutinise or challenge the assumptions that are being
made in using them.  Experts are also wedded to one or another type of method, and
discount other experts’ reservations as to their uses and limitations.

There are major advantages to using quantitative data, which account for the great interest in
it.   Being able to put information in numerical form means that:
• 

It  is  possible  to  manipulate  the  information  in  consistent  and  reproducible  ways,
combining figures, comparing data, and so on.  This allows for much greater precision
than simply talking about increases/decreases, etc.  As an accounting tool, numerical
data  can  help  us  check  for  consistency  in  our  forecasts  and  plans,  so  that,  for
example, we do not imagine that we can spend the same money twice over, work for
more than 24 hours in the day, and so on.

111

• 

• 

• 

It is possible, too, to manipulate appropriate data in systematic ways to produce trend
extrapolations and other forecasts.

It can allow for comparison of the scale of developments in various circumstances (e.g.
estimates  of  the  numbers  of  people  in  different  areas  who  might  be  suffering  a
disease, be in need of housing, etc.  Such comparisons can inform decision-making in
significant ways – for instance, helping to validate or undermine claims from particular
interest groups about how more serious their problems are than those of other people.
(But remember that statistics can only inform, not substitute for political decisions.)

It  is  possible  to  represent  results  in the form  of tables,  graphs  and  charts,  which  can
often communicate a great deal about the topic of interest.

Data may be generated in various ways.  Secondary data is data that was generated for other
purposes, but which we can re-use in our own work – often we can use secondary data from
official statistics or academic sources.  Sometimes we need to generate our own primary data.
The most common sources of data are sample surveys (in which a proportion of a population
is systematically sampled: a fairly small proportion can give results that are good estimates for
the whole population), or censuses of the population.  Many statistics are generated by means
of  questionnaires  and  other  surveys,  where  the  people  concerned  are  requested  to  provide
information  for  data  collection  purposes.    Otherwise,  data  may  be  “captured”  from  various
sources  –  as  a  by-product  of  people’s  contact  with  tax,  health  or  other  authorities,  and  the
records  that  these  produce;  or  from  other  sources  which  in  some  way  “capture”  their
behaviour.  (For example, a new source of data is websites, and it is, for example, possible to
track the growth of activity in a particular field in various regions by counting up and examining
the websites addressed to the topic.)

Once we have data in a numerical form, there are a great many quantitative techniques that
can be employed in the course of Foresight.  Many statistical tools are employed to determine
the  relationships  that  can  be  found  between  variables,  and  most  good  basic  textbooks  of
statistics and data analysis  will  discuss these techniques  and more fundamental  procedures
such as how to represent averages, trends, etc.

Here  we  will  briefly  outline  some  of  the  main  approaches  to  using  numerical  data  in
forecasting, since these methods are frequently employed in the course of Foresight studies,
and  it  is  important  to  be  aware  of  their  key  features.    Again,  there  are  a  large  number  of
introductory and more advanced books that detail such approaches.

TTRREENNDD  EEXXTTRRAAPPOOLLAATTIIOONN
The basis of extrapolation is to locate a trend that is apparent over time, and project forward
data  concerning  the  rates  of  change  and  the  extent  of  change  achieved.    In  shorter-term
forecasts  this  is  often  a  matter  of  extending  a  linear  of  exponential  curve  –  e.g.  economic
growth,  power  or  diffusion of a  technology.    In the  longer-term,  limits  to  growth  will  often  be
encountered  –  there  may  be  a  limit  to  the  size  of  the  population  to  whom  a  technology  or
cultural practice can diffuse for example, and various other types of trend curve may be fitted
to the data (for example, the well-known s-shaped logistic curve).  Some of the issues to be
confronted when using trend extrapolations are:

112

•  Are we really working with trend data?  Often historical data is limited, and trends are
guessed at, or inferred on the basis of assuming that population group or country A will
do tomorrow what group or country B is doing today.

•  Can we really be confident that the underlying driving forces will persist?  Do we have
some idea, that is, of why there is a trend, and of whether the factors that give rise to it
are  stable  or  even  self-reinforcing  ones?    Or  is  there  reason  to  expect  that  these
factors  could  change  dramatically,  rendering  the  trend  exhausted  or  even  reversed?
Will  counter-trends  come  into  play,  for  example  as  resistance  grows  to  a  particular
cultural development, or competitors learn how to challenge the power behind a trend?
•  At what point will ceilings or turning points be reached?  One of the main challenges in
forecasting  the  diffusion  of  technologies  or  practices  is  trying  to  estimate  what  the
“ceiling”  might  be,  for  example,  what  the  level  will  be  at  which  the  population  is
saturated  with  this new  product.   We  can easily  be  caught  out  here  –  for  example,  it
may  be assumed  that  the  ceiling  will  lie  at  one  TV  set  or  car  per  household  –  but  of
course  many  households  feature  more  than  one  of  these  products  (and  some  will
never have one).

• 

Is  the  quantitative  trend  masking  qualitative  change?    Often  we  talk  about  the
development of a  trend as  if  the  thing  that  is  developing  or  diffusing  is  remaining  the
same.  But this is not necessarily the case – new technologies do not only diffuse, for
example,  they  also  change  –  the  computers  that  are  continuing  to  diffuse  into  the
population  today  are  very  different  from  the  first  microcomputers  of  the  1970s,  for
example,  let  alone  the  mainframe  computers  of  the  1950s!    Similar  changes  may  be
involved  in  cultural  practices,  even  in  diseases:  and  one  consequence  is  that  the
implications  of  later  adoption  of  the  new  product  or  practice  are  liable  to  be  very
different from those of the early adoption.  The skills required, the cultural meaning the
utility of the new thing - these are all liable to have changed.

SSIIMMUULLAATTIIOONN  MMOODDEELLLLIINNGG
First, “simulation” can refer to two quite different things.  Here we are concerned with computer
simulation models.  However, “simulation” can also refer to role-playing games, where groups
of  people  act  out  the  strategies  of  different  agents  in  some  social  situation,  to  see  how  this
situation might evolve (and to get better insight into the objectives and incentives confronting
these different agents).  There have been a few efforts to bring these two types of simulation
together, for example by  using  a model  to  calculate  the  consequence  of  players’  actions for
economic  growth,  energy  use,  etc.,  but  this  remains  a  fairly  rare  approach  at  the  time  of
writing.

Computer  simulations  can  be  extremely  complicated  affairs,  with  so  many  variables  and
relationships involved that a large team has been required to assemble together all of these
elements  and  to  locate  relevant  data,  and  a  large  computer  is  necessary  to  run  the  model
(perhaps also requiring programming in a specialised language).  At the other extreme, very
simple models can be constructed using spreadsheets and similar tools, on quite basic PCs.
What  the  latter  may  lack  in  detail  and  comprehensive,  they  may  gain  in  simplicity  and
transparency.  There has been a long debate among modellers.  Some favour creating large,
“all-purpose”  models  (which  may  be  so  complex  that  not  even  their  authors  properly
understand how they function!).  Others seek to “keep  it  simple”, building  satellite models to
examine  particular  issues  in  detail,  around  a  basic  general  model.    There  are  also  major

113

theoretical  debates  as  to  the  sorts  of  assumptions  about  equilibrium  versus  dynamic
processes that should be built into models.

Modelling  has  been  most  developed  around  relatively  easily  quantifiable  issues,  such  as
economic  growth,  employment,  energy  use,  and  demographics.    In  recent  years  important
modelling  efforts  have  been  undertaken  in  examining  climate  change  and  environmental
impacts.  Modelling social, political and cultural change is much more contentious.

Models are to a large extent subject to similar questions as we raised for extrapolation (which
is  really  very  simple  modelling).    Some  of  the  other  key  questions  to  keep  in  mind  when
modelling, or its results, are to be used in Foresight are:
•  Who  validates  the  data  and  relationships  assumed?    Are  there  independent  experts
able  to  assess  the  quality  of  the  modelling  effort?    How  far  can  key  assumptions  be
debated, even by non-experts?

• 

• 

Is the model over complex, do even the designers understand how it works?  Can it be
simplified?    Can  it  be  made  less  costly  to  run,  in  terms  of  computer  and  labour
resources?

Is the model able to cope with structural or qualitative changes on the horizon?  If it is
supposed  to  be  dealing  with  some  future  development,  how  well  can  such
developments  be  described  within  its  framework?    How  far  are  the  results  already
dictated by the assumptions that are made here?

•  Does  the  model  assume  that  an  equilibrium  state  is  to  be  reached?    If  so,  is  this
remotely realistic – and is the passage of time taken to reach this equilibrium based on
serious analysis, or is it just a matter of faith?

CCRROOSSSS  IIMMPPAACCTT  AANNAALLYYSSIISS
This  is  both  an  expert-based  and  a  quantitative  method.    One  of  the  major  applications  of
cross impact analysis is in the preparation of scenarios. The approach is to ask the experts to
rate the likelihood of various events occurring, and furthermore to rate the likelihood of each
occurring if each of the others does or does not occur.  The matrix of possibilities that arises
from this can be subject to mathematical analysis to generate a list of scenarios, each with an
aggregate probability of occurrence assigned to it.  The method has strong protagonists, but
there has been limited independent analysis of its utility.

The cross-impact method forces attention to chains of causality: ‘x’ affects ‘y’; ‘y’ affects ‘z’; The
definition of events to be included in the study can be tiring and tedious but is a crucial step in
a  cross-impact  analysis.  Any  influences  not  included  in  the  event  set,  will  be  completely
excluded  from  the  study.  However,  the  inclusion  of  events  that  are  not  pertinent  can
complicate the analysis unnecessarily.

Cross impact analysis is often described in manuals of forecasting and futures methods, but in
practice relatively few people use it regularly (those that do are often strong proponents of the
method).  The low use reflects two main limitations:
• 
• 

It is very demanding of the experts who are a major source of the data used;

It is only suitable for dealing with a small number of key variables.

114

SSYYSSTTEEMM  DDYYNNAAMMIICCSS

WWhhaatt  iiss  ssyysstteemm  ddyynnaammiiccss??
Systems dynamics is one of the most commonly used forms of computer simulation for dealing
with many faceted problems.  The objective of this method is to find the conditions under which
a system under study will evolve into what direction. The tools used are models that represent
symbolically the reality of the system. It aims at considering the interrelationships among the
components  of  an  organisation  or  environment  rather  than  looking  at  each  component  in
isolation.

System dynamics is a tool to investigate complex dynamic problems in terms of their stocks
and flows and feedback  loops.   It  is  usefully  developed  within a  specific computer  language
(though  it  is  in  principle  possible  to  use  spreadsheets  and  related  methods  to  perform  the
relevant tasks.)  A system dynamics application starts with the identification of a problem. The
modellers should then draw in all major patterns of influence that together create the ‘system’
that produces the problem.  A successful model is able to simulate these patterns and produce
system  behaviour.  Different  values  for  variables  and  different  policy  structures  may  then  be
introduced to simulate how the system would respond to different circumstances or initiatives.
This  method  searches  for  the  causes  of  system  behaviour  that  lie  within  the  system,  with
events ‘outside’ serving as triggers rather than causes.

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??  AAnndd  ddooeess  ssyysstteemm  ddyynnaammiiccss  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
System  dynamics  models  are  used  to  understand  and  anticipate  changes  over  time  in
puzzlingly complex systems. It can be used with what are thought to be ‘data poor’ problems.
The  information  base  for  conceptualisation  and  formulation  of  System  Dynamics  models  is
much  broader  than  the  numerical  database  employed  in  operations  research  and  statistical
modelling.  This method can be useful to gain insight and understanding in a messy situation
by sketching increasingly sophisticated causal loop diagrams.

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
This  method  requires  an  expert  in  modelling  to  run.  It  looks  for  dynamic  patterns,  and
describes these patterns in terms of structural relationships between its multiple positive and
negative  feedback  loops  and  the  levels  and  rates  of  its  primary  variables.  The  design  of  a
system dynamics model begins with a time frame. The factors that contribute to the problem
are listed and their structural relationships sketched with particular attention to characterising
them as levels and rates that feed or drain them. Levels and rates must alternate in the model;
no  level  can  control  another  without  an  intervening  level.  The  next  step  is  to  quantify  these
factors and the assumptions behind them. Computer simulations can then be run to test the
validity  of the model. The  model  will  begin from the  initial  quantified  values for  the  variables
and step through them at discrete time intervals. The basic computer model employs a set first
order,  non-linear  differential  equations  to  reflect  changes  over  time,  with  the  chosen  time
interval small enough so that system behaviour appear continuous.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
The  qualitative  usage  helps  policy-makers  ask  better  questions  and  may  help  anticipate
patterns  and  sources  of  dysfunctions,  even  if  simulation  were  not  employed.  However,  the
dynamics generated by information feedback and circular causality are difficult to distinguish
without computer support.

115

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
System dynamics can be used with most of other models to increase understanding of system
behaviour or to simulate the future.

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
A  System  Dynamics  model  is  only  capable  of  running  one  version  of  a  situation  at  a  time,
although it may capture a great deal of variety in the changing values of its variables. Different
stakeholders  or  groups  with  different  cultural  or  political  agenda  might  bring  different
assumptions and thus see a quite different picture.  A system dynamics diagram can become
very complex when actual situations with lots of variables are modelled.

FFFFFFFFFFFFoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt            mmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooddddddddddddssssssssssss            ffffffffffffoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrr            ddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeffffffffffffiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg            kkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy            aaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnssssssssssss
aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddd            pppppppppppprrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss

Planning methods have been extensively developed in the last few decades.  These are now
extremely sophisticated, and able to deal effectively with many circumstances.  But they tend
to focus on shorter-term, more predictable topics than Foresight does.  They also tend to take
the objectives and aims of the eventual activities as givens, as ends for which we are seeking
to define the most effective means.  In contrast, Foresight may lead us to question the longer-
term  objectives  that  are  being  pursued,  and  is  likely  to  deal  with  uncertainties  that  are
sufficiently high to reduce the credibility of many restricted planing tools.
Some  tools  that  have  been  employed  in  Foresight  exercises  for  defining  key  actions  and
priorities will be briefly described here.  They include the analysis of critical/key technologies
(the general principles behind this approach can be applied to things other than technologies)
relevance trees  and morphological analysis.    SWOT analysis  might  also  be  seen as  such a
method.

CCRRIITTIICCAALL//KKEEYY  TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGIIEESS

WWhhaatt  aarree  ccrriittiiccaall  tteecchhnnoollooggiieess??
This method – which could in principle be applied to things other than technologies - consists
of applying sets of criteria against which the importance or criticality of particular technologies
can  be  measured.    The  method  usually  involves  interviews  with  industrial  experts  on  the
forecasted technology.  Sometimes, a benchmarking analysis provides comparisons with other
countries or regions. (Benchmarking refers to the identification of the state-of-the-art for a given
technology  relative  to  the  level  of  the  country/industry/region  in  question.    The  idea  is  that
identification  of  such  gaps  will  help  people  develop  strategies  for  closing  them  –  and  allow
them  to  learn  from  best  practice  elsewhere.    Similarly,  areas  of  strength  that  need  to  be
consolidated may  be  found.)    The  resultant  lists  can  be  technology-push/supply  oriented,  or
demand  industrial  needs  driven.    This  will  depend  on  whether  the  focus  is  on  future
technological capabilities, or rather on the emerging/future needs of industry.  This approach
tends  to  over-emphasise  technological  issues  at  the  expense  of  broader  socio-economic

116

concerns.  (In principle similar methods could be used to identify critical social innovations, but
we know of no examples.).

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??  AAnndd  ddoo  ccrriittiiccaall  tteecchhnnoollooggiieess  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
Critical technology studies permits informed assessments on technological developments, but
they  cannot  be  used  as  to  justify  decisions  or  actions  relating  to  technological  policy  or  the
economy. Critical technology studies can be used as a springboard for recommendations that
need to be discussed at the political level and evaluated with reference to practical factors.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
The method is based on interviews of industrial experts. The first step is to generate an initial
list of technologies that can be produced starting from an existing list (e.g. also from previous
Foresight  studies),  or  the  list  can  be  produced  by  a  combination  of  brainstorming  and
bibliography searches. In other cases panels of experts are used in combination with patent
analyses, bibliometrics and other studies.

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
A  satisfactory  definition  of  critical  technology  would  need  to  be  explicit  about  assumptions,
meaning  and  relevance.  A  useful  definition  of  critical  technology  should  meet  the  following
requirements:

1.  Is it policy-relevant? It should indicate where the points of potential policy intervention in
the  linked  processes  of  R&D,  commercialisation,  diffusion  and  utilisation  of  a  given
technology are to be found;

2.  Is it discriminating? It should be able to discriminate unequivocally between critical and
non-critical technologies. It should be as consistent as possible in level of aggregation
and in clarity of classification;

3.  Is it likely to yield reproducible results? It should be sufficiently functional to enable the
panels  or  agencies  employing  it  to  develop  tests  and  methods  that  will  prove  to  be
functional, robust, and accessible to those not directly participating in the exercise.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
In general, critical technologies reports are not produced to review or analyse policy. Rather it
should  be  considered  as  an  exploratory  step  that  draws  from  a  wide  range  of  informed
expertise and normative opinions. The outcomes of a critical technology process can be used
as inputs to define and debate policy.

HHooww  iitt  iiss  uusseedd  wwiitthh  ootthheerr  tteecchhnniiqquueess??
This method can be used in combination with brainstorming techniques to identify the initial list
of technologies.

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
It is difficult to achieve a true representation or unbiased sampling despite the attempt to place
the process in a well-defined structure.

117

RREELLEEVVAANNCCEE  TTRREEEESS
This  is  one  of  several  normative  forecasting  methods,  which  start  with  future  needs  or
objectives, and then seek to identify the circumstances, actions, technologies, etc. required to
meet these.  Relevance trees are used to analyse situations with distinct levels of complexity,
in  which  each  successive  lower  level  involves  finer  distinctions  or  subdivisions.    Relevance
trees  can  be  used  to  identify  problems  and  solutions  and  deduce  the  performance
requirements  of  specific  policies,  technologies,  etc.    They  may  be  used  to  determine  the
relative importance of efforts to implement policies or increase technological performance.

WWhhaatt  aarree  rreelleevvaannccee  ttrreeeess??
A relevance tree is an analytic technique that subdivides a broad topic into increasingly smaller
subtopics.

WWhhyy  iiss  tthhiiss  mmeetthhoodd  uusseeffuull??  AAnndd  ddoo  rreelleevvaannccee  ttrreeeess  hhaavvee  aa  ssppeecciiaall  uussee??
Relevance  trees  analysis  has  demonstrated  to  be  a  powerful  intellectual  stimulus  to  ensure
that  a  given  problem  or  issue  is  illustrated  in  comprehensive  detail  and  that  the  important
relationships among the items considered are shown in both current and potential situations.

WWhhoo  ppaarrttiicciippaatteess  aanndd  hhooww??
Participants are stakeholders directly concerned with the issue under study. The process can
be guided by an external facilitator.

HHooww  ddooeess  iitt  wwoorrkk??
A  relevance  tree  looks  much  like  an  organisational  chart  and  presents  information  in  a
hierarchical structure. The hierarchy begins at a high level of  abstraction  and descends  with
greater degrees of detail in succeeding level of the tree. The entries at a particular level are
intended to describe in a complete manner, the item to which they are connected in the level
above. Ideally, each entry at a particular level is orthogonal, that is, it should not overlap with
any other entry, thus being mutually exclusive of other entries. Finally, the items at the same
level should be addressed from the same point of view. If done properly, the structure can lead
to a clearer understanding of the topic under analysis.

HHooww  ccaann  wwee  uussee  tthhee  oouuttppuutt??
The output is a graphical representation with a hierarchical structure that shows how a given
topic can be subdivided into increasingly finer levels of detail.

WWhhaatt  aarree  tthhee  ddrraawwbbaacckkss??
The development of relevance trees requires critical judgement thus the possibility of human
error is present. Finally, if the underlying thought processes are not insightful, the outcomes of
this method will be weak.

118

MMOORRPPHHOOLLOOGGIICCAALL  AANNAALLYYSSIISS
This method is often used as complementary technique in conjunction with relevance trees. It
involves mapping options to obtain an overall perspective of possible solutions. Morphological
analysis has often been used for new product development but also in constructing scenarios.
The technique allows for two key elements:
•  a  systematic  analysis  of  the  current  and  future  structure  of  an  industry  area  (or

domain) as well as key gaps in that structure.

•  a strong stimulus for the invention of new alternatives that fill these gaps and meet any

imposed requirements.

Morphological analysis involves mapping a discipline to obtain a wide perspective of existing
solutions and future possibilities. The approach can be based on five basic steps:
•  Formulation and definition of a problem;
• 
•  Construction of a multidimensional matrix (morphological box) whose combinations will

Identification and characterization of all parameters toward a solution;

contain all possible solutions;

•  Evaluation of the outcome based on feasibility and achievement of desired goals; and
• 

In-depth analysis of best possibilities considering available resources.

Steps  2  and  3  form  the  heart  of  morphological  analysis  since  Steps  1,  4,  and  5  are  often
involved in other forms of analysis. Step 2, identification of parameters, involves studying the
problem  and  present  solutions  to  develop  a  framework.  This  step  can  involve  developing  a
relevance tree to help define a given  topic.  Once parameters  are  identified,  a  morphological
box can be constructed that lists parameters along one dimension. The second dimension is
determined by the nature of the problem.

The purpose of morphology is to organise information in a relevant and useful way in order to
help solve a problem or stimulate new ways of thinking. No "right" or "wrong" way exists for
constructing a morphology. Good knowledge about a problem or issue, however, is essential
to developing the most effective morphological framework.

119

FORESIGHT METHODS BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell,  W.  (1997)  Foundations  of  futures  studies  2  vols.  Transaction  Publishers,  New
Brunswick and London, 1997. ISBN 1-56000-271-9 and 1-56000-281-6

Butler, A. S. (1996). Team Think: 72 ways to make good, smart, quick decisions in any
meeting. New York, McGraw Hill.

Gavigan,  J.  P.  and  F.  Scapolo  (1999).  “Matching  methods  to  the  mission:  a  comparison  of
national Foresight exercises.” Foresight 01(06): 495-517.

Glenn, J. C. (ed) (1999). Futures Research Methodology. Washington, American Council for
the United Nations - The Millennium Project. http://millenium-project.org

Godet,  M.  (1993).  From  anticipation  to  action  -  A  handbook  of  strategic  prospective.
Paris, UNESCO.

Godet, M. (2001). Creating Futures - Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool.
London, Economica.

Howard and Stein-Hudson Associates and Parsons  Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (1996).
Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-making, U.S, Department of
Transportation  Federal  Highway  Administration,  Federal  Transit  Administration,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm.

Keenan, M, I Miles, F Fahri and  D Lecoq, (2001) "Creating Vision in the Regions: a framework
for organising Regional Foresight", IPTS Report no 59 Nov 2001 pp6 –12

Linstone,  H.  A.  and  M.  Turoff,  Eds.  (1975).  The  Delphi  method:  Techniques  and
applications. London, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Local Government Association Futures Toolkit ‘The future: why consider it?’
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/toolkit/index.htm &
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/toolkit/futures%20methods.pdf

Makridakis, S., S. Wheelwright, et al. (1983). Forecasting: methods and applications. New
York, John Wiley & Sons.

Martino,  J. P.  (1993).  Technological  forecasting  for  decision  making  -3rd  ed.  New  York,
McGraw-Hill.

Masini Barbieri, E. (1993). Why futures studies? London, Grey Seal Books.

I Miles (1997) Technology Foresight: Implications for Social Science, CRIC, University of
Manchester, Working Paper no 3   ISBN 1 84052 002 7 available at http://les1.man.ac.uk/cric/

I Miles (1999) "Services and Foresight" Service Industries Journal  vol. 19 no 2 pp 1-27
April 1999

S.W.  Popper,  C.  S.Wagner  et  al,  (1998)  New  Forces  at  Work:  Industry  Views  Critical
Technologies, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, .

Schartz, P. (1998) The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world
Wiley, Chichester etc., ISBN 0-471-97785-3

120

Slaughter,  R.A.  (1995)  The  foresight  principle:  cultural  recovery  in  the  21st  Century
Praeger, Westport, Conn. ISBN 0-275-95293-2

Slaughter,  R.  A.  (1996).  “The  knowledge  base  of  futures  studies  as  an  evolving  process.”
Futures 28(9): 799-812.

The  IPTS  Report  November  (2001)  No.  59  Special  Issue:  Foresight  and  Regional
Development, (editorial plus six articles)

The  IPTS  Report  July  (2001)  No.  56  Foresight  and  the  Long-term  view  for  Regional
Development (by James P Gavigan & Fabiana Scapolo)

Van Der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Chichester, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.

RELEVANT WEBSITES

The following is a short and by no means comprehensive guide to sites of interest.  Some of the most
valuable material can be gleaned from Foresight programmes themselves; in particular the UK national
programme has extensive documentation on other programmes and helpful search facilities:
http://www.foresight.gov.uk
Finding who is doing what, and where, in forecasting, futures research, strategic management
http://www.sfutures.com/web-lnk1.htm#Consult
Futures related sites, reference data and methods:
http://ag.arizona.edu/futures/fut/futmain.html
Futures  organisations  and  research  centres,  Futures  consultants,  Scenarios  pages,  Publications  and
forums:
http://www.coatesandjarratt.com/resources.htm
The IPTS website has a large volume of futures work.
http://www.jrc.es
One view as to how to build scenarios:
http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html
And a view on using scenario planning:
http://www.gbn.org/
Making use of Futures thinking; the UN University  "Millennium Project":
http://www.geocities.com/~acunu/
George Washington University “Emerging Technologies” study:
http://gwforecast.gwu.edu/index.asp
Summary  of  useful  knowledge  about  forecasting  that  can  be  used  by  researchers,  practitioners,  and
educators:
http://morris.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast/
The FOREN website:
http://foren.jrc.es

121

The FOREN Network
CM  International,  France;  Centre  for  Regional  Studies  West,  Hungarian  Research  Institute,
Hungary; Employment and Economic Development Centre, Uusimaa, Finland; Enterprise Ireland,
Ireland;  FinLombarda,  Italy;  Fondazione  Rosselli,  Italy;  Forfas,  Ireland;  Fraunhofer  Institut  für
Systemtechnik  und  Innovationsforschung,  Germany;  Helsinki  University  of  Technology,  Finland;
Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Spain; Instituto de la Mediana y Pequeña Industria, Spain; JRC-
Institute  for  Prospective  and  Technological  Sudies,  Spain;  National  Committee  for  Technological
Development,  Hungary;  Observatory  of  Innovation  Business  Development  Cardiff,  United
Kingdom;  Observatorio  de  Prospectiva  Tecnológica  Industrial,  Spain;  Parque  Tecnológico  de
Andalucia,  Spain;  Province  of  Flevoland,  The  Netherlands;  Policy  Research  in  Engineering,
Science  and  Technology,  University  of  Manchester,  United  Kingdom;  Regional  Development
Agency ONE North East, United Kingdom; RIS Yorkshire – Humberside, United Kingdom; Sviluppo
Italia,  Italy;  University  of  York,  SATSU,  United  Kingdom;  Welsh  Development  Agency,  United
Kingdom; Wirtschaftsförderung Region Stüttgart, Germany