Search results

This paper addresses a challenging topic, which in both academic and professional literatures has been widely discussed but mainly from one single angle – that is, how to select foresight methods. From that point of view researchers and consultants promote (even if unintentionally) the use of particular methods. Here the question of selection is raised from a different perspective: how are foresight methods selected?

The guiding “theory” is that a better understanding of the fundamental attributes of foresight methods and their linkages to the core phases of a foresight process, together with the identification of possible patterns in the selection of methods, will provide useful insights as to how the selection of methods is carried out.

So far the selection of foresight methods has been dominated by the intuition, insight, impulsiveness and – sometimes – inexperience or irresponsibility of practitioners and organisers. This paper reveals that the selection of foresight methods (even if not always coherent or systematic) is a multi‐factor process, and needs to be considered as such.

The results can be utilised by lecturers and students to describe and understand better the use of foresight methods, and by organisers of foresight (including practitioners) to better inform decisions during the design of (hopefully) more coherent methodological frameworks.

The paper combines practical concepts and frameworks (such as the Foresight Process and the Foresight Diamond) with innovative analyses to represent and visualise better the combination of methods in 886 case studies, for example introducing the Methods Combination Matrix (MCM) to examine the dynamics of a mix of methods.

The paper sets out to explore the nature and degree of variation in foresight “style” across six world regions. The underlying hypothesis is that differences in regional context – in terms of political, socio‐economic, and cultural conditions – will affect foresight “style”. At the same time, a secondary hypothesis acknowledges that policy tool transfer and international learning might soften the influence of contextual conditions.

Using the data collected for more than 800 foresight exercises in six world regions, the paper considers eight different dimensions of foresight “style”, including domain coverage, time horizon, target groups, and methods used. It interprets regional differences (and similarities) with reference to dominant political and economic traditions in each region. In so doing, it tests the hypothesis that foresight “style” is influenced by regional context.

The analysis suggests that some foresight “style” dimensions vary between regions more than others. For example, there is marked variation in the domain areas covered by foresight across the world, while some regions appear to prefer particular methods over others. Time horizons also vary. For other dimensions, such as participation levels and the identity of target groups, there is a good deal of similarity. Thus, some dimensions of “style”, at least at the aggregate level, seem to be more influenced by regional context than others.

The paper is unique in being the first publication to survey such a large sample of foresight activity across a wide part of the globe.

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to the special issue of foresight, dedicated to the European Foresight Monitoring Network (EFMN).

The paper sets out the project's rationale and its scope and approach.

The paper presents some of the achievements of the EFMN, as well as some of its limitations.

The paper considers how the EFMN might be sustained and further developed over the longer term. It also provides a brief description of the main papers in the special issue.

The present paper aims to explore the potential of joint foresight exercises in serving joint programming, a concept highlighted in furthering the creation of the European Research Area (ERA).

The paper starts with setting the context, i.e. the ERA concept, and the importance of joint programming. It then explores the potential of joint foresight in serving joint programming. This is done by analysing the current situation of trans‐national foresight based on the EFMN pool of foresight exercises. Then, possible modes and issues of trans‐national foresight collaboration, as well as perceived benefits and challenges, are also examined in setting a framework for foresight collaboration.

Joint foresight is not carried out in a fully fledged mode, yet but both interest and potential is high. A framework for foresight collaboration can already be set. EFMN is a valuable source of information and also holds a central, synergistic and complementary role in relation to other sources in defining the way to go forward in joint foresight.

The framework for foresight collaboration can form the basis for strategic discussions across EU member states as well as for further research to clarify and enrich understanding of the governing conditions and variables.

The paper proves that EFMN is both a significant pool of information and holds a complementary role in defining the way forward in supporting joint programming under the ERA. The foresight collaboration framework first attempted here is also worth exploiting further.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the contribution of the EFMN Issue Analysis to the identification of key emerging science and technology issues of high relevance for European policies, as well as to the development of future European science and technology policy priorities. As such, it describes the experience of the past three EFMN Issue Analyses (2005 to 2007), which focused on “Cognitive Science” (2005), “Healthy Ageing” (2006) and “Emerging Knowledge‐based Economy and Society” (2007).

The annual EFMN Issue Analysis aims at selecting and analysing one key emerging science and technology issue that is relevant for European Union policies. The selection is based on the screening and analysis of recent international foresights along a set of predefined criteria.

The paper highlights future socio‐economic perspectives and S&T developments coming along with the topics “Cognitive Science”, “Healthy Ageing” and “Emerging Knowledge‐based Economy and Society”, as well as policy recommendations as emerged from the respective expert workshop discussions. The paper also reflects on the methodology used, and experience of, and the lessons learned from the last three Issue Analyses.

This paper is of interest for foresight practitioners and policy‐makers at European level, as well as at national or regional level in European Member States.

The paper highlights the role of the EFMN Issue Analysis in providing the basis for well‐informed (science and technology) policy‐making.

The EU Framework Programme and the foresight community are both focusing on future developments in innovation. This paper seeks to answer the questions: How much can they learn from one another to enhance their visions on the future? Are both perspectives aligned?

This research used the Dynamo approach, which analyses the match and mismatch of innovation entities by characterising both by a codified taxonomy on innovation. This taxonomy is based on the experience of TNO in innovation. In total, 140 flagship foresight activities from the EFMN database are analysed, as well as the Working Programmes 2007‐2008 from FP7 Cooperation.

The findings show that the perspectives of FP7 and the foresight community on innovations in health are highly aligned. Some interesting mismatches are identified that can be taken up by FP8 and the foresight community. Only a limited number of innovation themes are not addressed by both perspectives.

These results can help the foresight community to focus on important innovation themes in health not generally addressed and give input to the new FP7 working for 2009‐2013.

The results of the study show a more detailed insight into what innovation topics foresight and FP7 are mentioning/addressing.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on innovation systems dynamics and the positioning of Europe in a longer term perspective, with special attention to the international governance of the major challenges which humanity is facing.

The method used is based on a secondary analysis and interpretation of Foresight studies. The underlying assumption is that Foresight exercises can be considered as the scene where techno-economic systems and trajectories are proposed, discussed and shaped.

Foresights can be distinguished by the challenges and issues they focus on: – the innovation race: competitiveness and influence through innovation, – the thematic concerns: the stakes of global public goods, – the normative perspectives: a new style of development in the making. The question to know whether Europe can be a world driver in fostering responsible innovation models and cooperative modes of knowledge circulation and global challenges handling through relevant social and technological innovations.

This paper reviews and puts in perspective Foresight exercises in an original way, this on two grounds: first, it includes exercises fostered at national, regional (in particular the EU) and global (UN system) levels – this to account for the emerging multi-level governance and, second, it classifies them according to their major focus, namely the innovation race, the thematic concerns (global public goods) and the normative perspectives (new style of development). It provides to the actors of innovation in both the public and private sector an understanding of the current key-concerns and visions on innovation systems and the position of Europe.

The primary goal of a startup is to find a viable business model that can generate value for its customers while being effectively captured by the startup itself. This business model, however, is not easily defined, being a consequence of the application of tools involving trials, data analyses and testing. The Lean Startup (LS) methodology proposes a process for agile and iterative validation of business models. Given the popularity and importance of such methodology in professional circles, the purpose of this paper is to conduct a historical literature review of existing academic and professional literature, correlating LS concepts and activities to previous theory and alternative business model validation methods.

A historically oriented systematic literature review employing snowball sampling was conducted in order to identify academic and professional literature and references for iterative validation of business models. A total of 12 scholarly journals and professional magazines dealing with strategy, innovation, entrepreneurship, startups and management were used as data sources. The extensive literature review resulted in 963 exploratory readings and 118 papers fully analyzed.

The results position the LS as a practical-oriented and up-to-date implementation of strategies based on the Learning School of strategy making and the effectuation approach to entrepreneurship; the authors also identify a number of methods and tools that can complement the LS principles.

This paper identified and synthesized the scientific, academic and professional foundations that precede, support and complement the main concepts, processes and methods advocated by the LS methodology.