Strategic Decision-Making in Policy Formulation and the Role of Foresight

1. Professor Ben Martin Strategic Decision-Making in Policy Formulation and the Role of Foresight Professor Ben Martin SPRU � Science and Technology Policy Research University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QE, UK (B.Martin@sussex.ac.uk) 2006/7 Training Programme on Technology Foresight Module 3: Technology Foresight for Decision-Makers UNIDO, Budapest, Hungary, 9 November 2006

2. Professor Ben Martin Structure Challenges related to strategic decision-making the role of Foresight Particular challenges for CEE countries Evolution and impact of Foresight as a policy tool 1950/60s � US 1970s � Japan 1980s � France, Sweden, Australia etc. 1990s � US, Netherlands, Germany, France 1993-date � UK Foresight Programmes 1, 2 and 3 Factors driving the development of Foresight The changing social contract �Wiring up� the national system of innovation Conclusions and challenges for CEE countries

3. Professor Ben Martin Challenges for strategic decision-making and policy Economy & society becoming more knowledge-intensive New generic technologies likely revolutionary impact on economy and society dependent on advances in basic research Growing strategic importance of sc & technology Explicit longer-term policy for S&T essential in era of growing international competition

4. Professor Ben Martin Particular challenges for CEE Weak/less connected national (and regional) system of innovation Danger of being �squeezed� between �high tech� and �low wage� economies Lack of Foresight experience and expertise Resistance to any policy mechanism that smacks of �planning�

5. Professor Ben Martin The nature and role of Foresight Foresight is the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future of science, technology, the economy, environment and society with the aim of identifying the areas of strategic research and the emerging generic technologies likely to yield the greatest economic and social benefits Foresight is not the same as forecasting � a process not a technique Not predicting, but shaping or constructing the future by integrating S&T push with demand pull Different approaches/methods (Cuhls)

6. Professor Ben Martin United States � early experiences 1950s Early technology forecasting Development of techniques by RAND etc. (e.g. Delphi, scenarios) 1960s Large forecasting exercises by DOD e.g. US Navy, USAF COSPUP Field Surveys (e.g. astronomy, life sciences) provided overview of field + platform to educate ind�y & gov�t But reflected interests of elite scientists only little more than public relations exercises? over-academic and too long expensive largely ignored economic and social demands failed to identify priorities ... Impact limited

7. Professor Ben Martin Japan � STA 30-year forecasts Aim = to provide a �holistic� overview (not to set specific policies) Approach � based on 4 principles incorporate economic & social needs as well as S&T advances holistic (... need to identify new areas of technology �fusion�) must evaluate relative importance and identify priorities forecasts have 2 aspects predictive normative � setting goals Results � 2 main uses Background anticipatory intelligence Monitoring S&T including level of Japanese R&D

8. Professor Ben Martin Impact of STA Delphi surveys Utility to companies Survey of 250 firms � 59% found results �very important� & 36% �worthwhile� Accuracy of 1970 forecasts 64% fully or partially realised in first 20 years Variation with field IT & health 80% resources (e.g. energy) 50% Experts in a subfield slightly less accurate than experts from neighbouring areas (... some experts also advocates/proponents) ... Foresight needs to draw upon a wide range of expertise

9. Professor Ben Martin Japan (continued) Process Benefits Process benefits more important than specific forecasts � the �5 Cs� Communication Concentration on the longer term Co-ordination Consensus Commitment Forecasts become national goals and ... to a large extent self-fulfilling prophecies

10. Professor Ben Martin Japan (continued) Different Levels of Foresight Holistic � STA Macro-level � MITI (10 year �visions�) and other ministries Meso-level � groups of companies Micro-level � a individual companies or research institutions Each level draws upon, and feeds into, higher and lower levels i.e. a national foresight system

11. Professor Ben Martin Foresight in other countries in 1980s France 1981 Socialist Gov�t � technology a priority for industrial competitiveness & social devlpt ? various foresight initiatives e.g. National Colloquium on Research & Technology ? �mobilising programmes� But new Gov�t in 1986 dropped most of foresight initiatives Sweden Initiatives by e.g. Council for Planning and Co-ordination of Research (FRN), National Board for Technical Development (STU), Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA), Defence Research Institute (FOA) and in industry

12. Professor Ben Martin Foresight in other countries in 1980s Canada, Australia Various initiatives by government ministries, research funding agencies and industry � mixed experiences Elsewhere Little or no foresight in Britain, Germany or US (apart from field surveys)

13. Professor Ben Martin US � lists of critical technologies Late 1980s � upsurge of interest in foresight ... concern about declining competitiveness especially cf. Japan Department of Defense Identified 22 technologies critical to weapons systems Department of Commerce Identified 12 new technologies benefiting US economy over 1990-2000; also compared US, Japan & EC and identified 13 policy actions to enhance exploitation by US

14. Professor Ben Martin US � lists of critical technologies Other �critical technologies� exercises Aerospace Industries Association � 4 criteria ? 8 crucial technologies Computer Systems � 16 technologies & factors to enhance US performance Council on Competitiveness � experts in 9 sectors ? list of 23 technologies OSTP National Critical Technologies Panel � 22 critical technologies in 6 main groups (e.g. ICT, materials)

15. Professor Ben Martin US � lists of critical technologies Comparison of �critical technologies� exercises Similar approach � long list + explicit criteria ? short list Similar lists � creation of consensus? Criticisms Little empirical data Criteria quite general and not clear how applied Concentration on �fashionable� technologies? Critical technologies identified too broad for funding decisions? Over-reliance on a committee � limited interaction with industrial and sc�ic communities ? less commitment to results Impact Exercises led to discussion of longer-term future for science & technology (e.g. in Congress)

16. Professor Ben Martin Netherlands 1987-89 SPRU study of foresight in 8 countries for MES Ministry of Economic Affairs 1990 exercise � 4 steps consultation � 5 selection criteria ? 3 areas (e.g. mechatronics) analysis � study by consultants (key players, bottlenecks, opp�s) strategic conf of stakeholders � test results, create consensus + commitment follow-up � e.g. pilot project, new institute Repeated in 1992 and 1994 (+ study of 15 sectors in 1995-98) Assessment � time-consuming (especially to involve SMEs) but results valuable to participants (75%) & many implemented (60%) Ministry of Education and Science Foresight Steering Committee � initiate & co-ordinate foresight activities e.g. in chemistry (scenarios), agriculture, energy, social sciences Ministry of Agriculture � 1995-98 Foresight programme

17. Professor Ben Martin Germany Post-1990 � upsurge of interest in foresight 1. ISI and BMFT Projekttr�eger Review overseas foresight exercises (especially US critical technologies lists) ? starting list of 100 emerging technologies Explicit ranking criteria + formal approach (relevance tree analysis) ? short list of technologies critical to Germany 2. 30-Year Delphi survey of S&T Collaboration with Japan � used Japanese qu�s � survey of >1000 researchers Comparison with Japanese results Similar realisation times Differ over importance & constraints (... differences in national tech systems) Some experts �biased� ... act as proponents

18. Professor Ben Martin Germany (continued) 3. Mini-Delphi with Japan To develop improved methodology � co-determination of qu�s, add qu�s on market demand, seek qualitative as well as quantitative information 4. Other Foresight exercises 1998 Delphi Futur programme (Cuhls) Impact of Foresight Federal Government e.g. IT priorities, �strategic talks� with industry L�nder � stimulated regional Foresight (Cuhls) Industry � input to company strategy, sector studies by industrial associations (e.g. chemicals), survey of doctors by pharmaceutical company, in-house foresight by companies Public impact � discussion in media ? more positive debate on future technologies

19. Professor Ben Martin France Ministry of Industry � identification of �key tech�s� Ministry for HE & Research � 1994 Delphi survey (using Japanese qu�s) ? comparison of views of French experts with German and Japanese Similar views on timing of new technologies/innovations Different views on most important technologies/innovations More likely to see US as leaders (cf. Germans � see Japanese as stronger) Differ over technological constraints, and over which topics require international collaboration (implications for EU RTD policy?) Showed can use Delphi to identify groups of experts with different views (e.g. large firms less optimistic over timing of innovations than SMEs) Other lower-level foresight e.g. at regional level

20. Professor Ben Martin UK Technology Foresight Programme 1983 SPRU report Learn from Japan & try foresight on an experimental basis Little impact � 10 years too early! 1992 SPRU review ? options for UK 1993 White Paper on Science and Technology launched Technology Foresight Programme (TFP) Aims increase UK competitiveness create industry/science base/government partnerships identify exploitable technologies focus attention on market opportunities + better use of sc. base Organisation Office of Science and Technology (and other departments etc.) + consultants Steering Group (industry, universities, gov�t) + 15 sector panels

21. Professor Ben Martin TFP � three phases 1. Pre-Foresight �Focus on Foresight� seminars, �co-nomination� to identify experts, selection of 15 sectors and panels 2. Main Foresight Stage Initial analysis � panel discussions, scene-setting, UK strengths & weaknesses, consult expert pools, preliminary reports Wider consultation � regional workshops etc., Delphi survey (7000 experts) Panel reports � trends, driving forces, challenges, barriers ? identified S&T priorities + recommendations for implementing Steering Group synthesis � identified generic S&T and infrastructural priorities 3. Post-Foresight (i.e. implementation) Influence government R&D priorities + wider policy (e.g. regulation) Influence company R&D strategies + improve industry/science base partnerships

22. Professor Ben Martin TFP conclusions 27 generic science and technology priorities e.g. communicating with machines, bio-informatics, chemical & biological synthesis, security & privacy technology, product & manufacturing life-cycle analysis, risk assessment & management Classified into 6 categories Harnessing future communications & computing From genes to new organisms, processes & products New materials, synthesis & processing Getting it right: precision & control in management A cleaner world Social trends & impact of new technology NB Human and social factors important as well as generating new technologies

23. Professor Ben Martin TFP conclusions (continued) Identified main bottlenecks Getting potential of technology understood by managers, workforce, consumers Complementing new technology with right skills Freeing up markets & ensuring market transactions conducted on orderly basis ? 18 generic infrastructure priorities e.g. communication skills, incentives for multidisciplinary research, information superhighway, special incentives for SMEs, supportive regulations (environmental, financial & communications) Classified into 5 categories Education and training infrastructure Research infrastructure Communications infrastructure Financial infrastructure Policy and regulatory infrastructure

24. Professor Ben Martin UK TFP (continued) Impact Process benefits (the 5 Cs) substantial � addressed areas of UK weakness Foresight Challenge Fund � >�90M of government + matching private funds Re-orientation of spending by Research Councils + Ministries (partly) Impact on companies � engaged key decision makers, influenced sectors without a track record of working with the science base, provided case studies + industrial champions

25. Professor Ben Martin UK TFP (continued) 1997 Labour Government review ? continue & strengthen Foresight 1999-2001 Second Foresight Programme Learn from 1st and improve Getting foresight into boardrooms, City, SMEs etc. � change in title (�technology� dropped) More emphasis on societal aspects (e.g. ageing population, crime) Delphi dropped but introduced digital �knowledge pool� No final overview/report

26. Professor Ben Martin Assessment of UK TFP Factors for successful implementation of Foresight Learnt from overseas experiences but evolved approach suited to UK Pre-foresight developed enthusiasm in scientific and industrial communities Co-nomination ? large numbers of new people involved Generated impressive amount of info on longer-term future Process benefits substantial � 5 Cs � all areas where UK previously weak TF strengthened links in NSI Communication Concentration on the longer-term Co-ordination Consensus Commitment ? Strengthened links in national system of innovation

27. Professor Ben Martin Assessment of TFP (continued) Weaknesses Time-scale too tight Co-nomination ? some areas not represented Limited amount of data used by panels Uncertain relationship between OST & Gov�t departments (especially post-1995) Over-emphasis on Research Councils spending cf. Government departments? Weaker on implementation + action Only limited success in encouraging other levels of foresight to take root (e.g. regional, sectoral, company)

28. Professor Ben Martin UK 3rd Foresight Prog, 2002-date Focused foresight on selected areas flood & coastal defence cognitive systems exploiting the electromagnetic spectrum cyber trust & crime prevention brain science, addiction & drugs intelligent infrastructure systems detection & identification of infectious diseases tackling obesity sustainable energy management in the built environment

29. Professor Ben Martin UK FP3 (cont.) Mixed success in terms of involving companies, other stakeholders & public generating sustainable networks Limited impact of Foresight outside these areas Rationale for choice of areas unclear Little use for overall priority-setting New S&T horizon-scanning centre � but rather isolated from Foresight Problems from staff turnover Attempts to develop international links but not very substantial

30. Professor Ben Martin UK FP Phase 3 (cont.) PREST evaluation � Foresight successful in mobilising diverse groups of high-calibre specialists stimulating collaboration across disciplinary boundaries engaging senior policy-makers with science and scientists informing national policies and programmes generating a �reservoir� of knowledge that will enable rapid policy responses to future challenges weaker in terms of providing adequate resources (altho good value for money) �aftercare� need to ensure persistence of networks involving business & contributing to wealth creation public engagement � treated as �end-of-pipe� activity prioritisation across research areas

31. Professor Ben Martin Factors Driving Devlpt of Foresight The changing �social contract� for science 1945-~1990 � Vannevar Bush �social contract� Investment by government in science will ? increased wealth, health & national security. But no very specific expectations. Changing world context since 1990 � revised social contract Increasing competition, globalisation, emphasis on innovation + knowledge-based industry ? Technology & science becoming competitive resources Increased pressures on public expenditure ? Need to link science & technology to economic & social needs Changing nature of knowledge production (Mode 2?) ? Need for communication, networks, partnerships and collaboration ... Fundamental change needed in social contract for science Technology foresight = a tool for creating a new relationship between S&T and society

32. Professor Ben Martin Factors Driving Devlpt of Foresight Wiring up the national system of innovation Concept of �national innovation system� � emphasis on links Many important innovations characterised by technology confluence and fusion Requires multi-disciplinary/institutional/sectoral effort � i.e. networks, partnerships Need for systemic policies + mechanisms to strengthen NSI so that it becomes more effective at learning and innovating (Cf. Organ�l learning � need to stimulate & strengthen inter�ns) Technology Foresight ? more effective knowledge distribution enhanced learning greater capacity for innovating Foresight = a tool for �wiring up� the national (or regional) innovation system

33. Professor Ben Martin Conclusions and challenges for CEE countries Foresight a useful tool for strategic decision-making on science and technology at macro, meso & micro levels Japan � 30 years of experience Post-1990 � other OECD countries taken up and derived benefits Now spreading to other countries (CEE, Latin America, Asia, etc.) No approach to foresight is perfect � each has strengths and weaknesses Learn from other countries, then adapt to local circumstances Balancing S&T push against demand pull crucial to success of Foresight

34. Professor Ben Martin Conclusions (cont.) 5. Individual countries and organisations may adopt different approaches Japan, Germany, France, UK � �big bang� approach cf. Netherlands, Australia (and later UK) � focus on selected areas using panels, studies, networks etc. 6. Spread of foresight may herald revised �social contract� between S&T and society � way of linking society's needs to S&T opportunities 7. Foresight offers policy tool for �wiring up� the national and regional innovation system so can learn and innovate more effectively � potentially very useful in CEE