1. Agrafiotis, D., Vagianou-Angelaki, D., Paschali N., and Maina, A. (1994), “The Scenario Workshop Methodology: The case of Corfu”, Sustainable Urban Living in the Coming Decades, 5-7 May 1994.
2. Alsan, A and Oner, M.A. (2004), “An integrated view of foresight: integrated foresight management model”, Foresight, 5(2), pp. 33-45.
Alsan, A. and Oner, M. A. (2004a), “Comparison of national foresight studies by integrated foresight management model”, Futures, 36, pp. 889-902.
3. Banthien, H., Ewen, C., Jaspers, M., and Mayer-Ries, J. (2002), “Welche zukunft für foresight und forschungspolitik? Futur als methodische, inhaltliche und institutionelle innovation”, Development & Perspectives, 1, pp.24-46.
4. Barre, R. (2001), “S&T foresight as a collective learning process in view of strategic decision making”, In: OST and CEST (Ed.), Monitoring Foresight Activities, Seville, Spain: European Science and Technology Observatory.
Available from: http://esto.jrc.es/docs/foresight3.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
5. Beutler, L. (2005), “Involving stakeholders in irrigation and drainage district decisions: who, what, when, where, why, how”, California Water Plan Update, 4, pp. 1095-1106.
6. Bloom, P.J. (2000), “Circle of Influence: Implementing Shared Decision Making and Participative Management. Lake Forest, IL: New Horizons.
7. Boehm, B., Grunbacher, P., and Briggs, R.O. (2001), “Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: Lessons learned”, IEEE Software, May/June 2001, pp.
46-55.
8. Britto, M., Britto, S., and Collins, S.C. (2005), “Enhancing consensus-building through technology”, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), pp. 120-124.
9. Burleson, B.R., Levine, B.J., and Samter, W. (1984), “Decision-making procedure and decision quality”, Human Communication Research, 10, pp. 557-574.
10. Cagivan, J. and Scapolo, F. (2001), “Foresight and the long-term view for regional development”, The IPTS Report [online] 56, Available from:
http://foren.jrc.es/Docs/ArticleJPGFSn56/MET1E565.pdf [Access 20 March 2006].
11. Caracostas, P. and Muldur, U. (1998), Society, the Endless Frontier: A Europena Vision of Research and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century, Brussel: European Commission, DG XII.
12. Cariola, M. and Rolfo, S. (2004), “Evolution in the rationales of foresight in Europe”, Future, 36, pp. 1063-1075.
13. Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons,.
14. Cuhls, K. (2001), “Deepening of foresight exercises having taken place in 6 countries- Germany”, In: OST and CEST (Ed.), Monitoring Foresight Activities, Seville, Spain: European Science and Technology Observatory. Available from:
http://esto.jrc.es/docs/foresight2.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
15. Cuhls, K. (2001), “From Forecasting to Foresight Processe”, Submission to 4S/EASST，Conference 2000, Wien, Austria.
16. Cuhls, K. (2003), “Government foresight activities in Germany: the Futur
process”, The second international conference on technology foresight, 27-28 Feb.
2003, Tokyo.
17. Eerola, A and Jørgensen, B. H. (2002), “Technology foresight in the nordic countries, Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. Available from:
http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/sys/syspdf/ris-r-1362.pdf [accessed 24 April 2006].
18. Eerola, A. (2001), “Deepening of foresight exercises having taken place in 6 countries- Sweden”, In OST and CEST (Ed.), Monitoring Foresight Activities, Seville, Spain: European Science and Technology Observatory. Available from:
http://esto.jrc.es/docs/foresight2.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
19. Eijndhoven, J.V. (1997), “Technology Assessment: Process or Product?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54 (2,3), pp. 269-286.
20. Engel, P. (1997), The Social Organization of Innovation: a Focus on Stakeholder Interaction, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute.
21. EPA. (1998), Stakeholder Involvement, Action Plan, EPA. Availabile from:
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/siap1298.htm [accessed 24 April 2006].
22. European Commission. (2002), Thinking , Debating and Shaping the Future:
Foresight for Europe, Final Report of the High Level Expert Group for the European Commission, April 24, 2002, European Commission, Brussels.
23. Faucheux, S. and Hue, C. (2001), “From irreversibility to participation: towards a participatory foresight for the governance of collective environmental risks”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86(1), pp. 223-243.
24. Finlay, J.R. (1986), “Ethics and accountability: the rising power of stakerholder capitalism”, Business Quarterly, 51(4), pp. 68-77.
25. Floyd, S. W. and Wooldridge, B. (1992), “Strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation, The Academy of Management Executive, 6, pp. 27-39.
26. For Learn Team (2006), “Eforesee Malta-Exchange foresight Relevant Experiences among Small Enlargement Economies”, online document, http://forlearn.jrc.es/guide/6_examples/EforeseeMalta.htm [accessed 24 April 2005].
27. Forester, J. (1999), The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA, USA: Pitman.
29. Gavigan, J. (Ed.) (2002), “The role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities”, Conference Proceedings, Institute of Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Seville, August 2003,
http://www.jrc.es/cfapp/reports/details.cfm?ID=1021.
30. Georghiou, L. (1996), “The UK technology foresight programme”, Future 28(4), pp. 359-337.
31. Gertler, M.S. and Wolfe, D.A.(2004), “Local social knowledge management:
Community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercise”, Future, (36), pp. 45-65.
32. Glenn, J. and Gordon, T. (2004), “Future S&T management policy issue-2025 global scenarios”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, pp. 913-940.
33. Gow, G. A. (2005), “Policymaking for Critical Infrastructure: a case study on strategic interventions in public safety telecommunications, Burlington, VT, USA:
Ashgate.
34. Grimble, R., and Wellard, K. (1996), “Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and
opportunities”, In Proceeding of the ODA NRSP Socioeconomic Methodologies Workshop, 29–30 Apr, 1996, London, UK.
35. Grimble, R.; Chan, M.K., Aglionby, J., Quan, J. (1995), Trees and Trade-offs: a Stakeholder Approach to Natural Resource Management, London, UK:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
36. Grupp, H. (1999), “Foresight activities”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(1), pp.1-3.
37. Grupp, H. and Linstone, H. (1999), “National technology foresight activities around the globe: resurrection and new paradigms”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(1), pp. 85-94.
38. Hambly, M. and Reeves, R. (1997), “The application of foresight in UK research and development”, Working paper SWP 10/97, Cranfield School of Management.
Available from:
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/305/2/SWP1097.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006]
39. Hanny, S., Henkel, M., and vonWalden, L. D. (2001), “Making and implementing foresight policy to engage the academic community: health and life scientists’
involvement in, and response to, development of the UK’s technology foresight programme”, Research Policy, 30(8), pp. 1203-1219.
40. Hill, M. (1982), “Group versus individual performance: are N+ 1 heads better than one?”, Psychological Bulletin, 91, pp. 517-539.
41. Hindess, B. (1986), “Actors and social relations”, In Wardell, M.; Turner, S., ed., Sociological theory in transition. Allen & Unwin, Boston, MA, USA. pp.
113–126.
42. Hjelt, M., Luoma, P., VANDE Linde, E., Ligvoet, A., Vader, J. and Kahan, J.
(2001) “Experience with national technology foresight studies”, Sitra Report Series 4/2001, Helsinki, July 2001, http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/reportti4.pdf.
43. Innes, J. E. (1996), “Planning through consensus building”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), pp. 460-473.
44. Innes, J. E. (2004), “Consensus building: clarifications for critics”, Planning Theory, 3(1), pp. 5-20.
45. Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. (2004), “Consensus building and complex adaptive systems- a frame work for evaluating collaborative planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), pp. 412-423.
46. Innes, J.E. and Connick, S. (1999), “The San Francisco estuary Project, Case 5”, In Susskind, L. McKearnan, S. AND Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds) The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. IPTS For-Learn Team. (2005), “Futur-the German research dialogue”, The For-Learn Online Foresight Guide. Available from:
http://forlearn.jrc.es/guide/6_examples/futur.htm [accessed 20 March 2006].
48. Irvine, J. and Martin, B. R. (1984), Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, London: Pinter.
49. Jasper, M., Banthien, H., and Mayer-Ries, J. (2004), “New forms of knowledge management in participatory foresight: the case of future”. In: Proceeding of EU-US seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods 13-14 May 2004, Seville, Spain, pp. 68-80.
50. Johnston, R. (2001), “Foresight-refining the process”, International Journal of Technology Management, 21(7/8), pp. 711-725.
51. Joss, S. and Bellucci, S. (Eds.)(2002), Participatory Technology Assessment- European Prospective. London: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminister.
52. Keenan, M. and Miles, I. (2002), “Basic approaches for technology foresight at the national and sub-national (regional level’)”, In: International Conference on Technology Foresight for Urkaine, September 10-11. 2002, Kyiv: UNIDO.
53. Korhonen-Yrjanheikki, K. (2004), “Anticipating the future of the Finnish Engineering Educaiton up to the year 2015: Stakeholder approach”, the fourth CHEPS Summer School on Higher Education Research, Enschede, The Netherlands (5 - 9 July 2004.
54. Kuwahara, T. (1999), “Technology forecasting activities in Japan”, Technological and Social Change, 60(1), pp. 5-14.
55. Laird, F.N. (1993), “Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science”, Technology, & Human Value, 18(3), pp. 341-361.
56. Lederman, L.L. (1984), “Foresight activities in the U.S.A.: time for a re-assessment?”, Long-Range Planning, June 1984, pp. 36-50.
57. Libby, R., Trotman, K.T., and Zimmer, I. (1987), Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp. 81-87.
58. Linestone, H.A. (1999), Decision-making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives to Improve Performance, Norwood, MA: Artech House.
59. Long, N. (1992), “From paradigm lost to paradigm regained?”, In Long, N.; Long, A., ed., Battlefields of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development. Routledge, London, UK. pp. 16–43.
60. Loveridge, D. (1996), “Technology and models of the future”, PREST Discussion Paper Series, 4 Available from:
http://www.personal.mbs.ac.uk/dloveridge/documents/futmodpdf_wp4.PDF [accessed 13 April 2006].
61. Loveridge, D. and Street, P. (2003), “Inclusive foresight”, PREST Discussion Paper Series, 03-13. Available from:
http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/engineering-policy/publications/documents/PRES TDP03-13.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
62. Lubeck, L. (2003), “Foresight at national lever- the experience of Sweden and its contribution to the foresight process and culture”, Expert papers of Technology Foresight Summit 27-29 March 2003, Budapet.
63. Maranville, S.J. (1989), “You can’t make steel without having some smoke: a case study in stakeholder analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, 8(1), pp. 57-63.
64. Margerum, R.D. (2002), “Evaluating collaborative planning-implications from an empirical analysis of growth management”, Journal of American Planning
Association, 68(2), pp. 179-193.
65. Martin, B. (2001), “Technology foresight in a rapidly globalizing economy”, In:
Regional Conference on Technology Foresight for CEE and NIS countries 4-5 April 2001, Vienna, Austria: UNIDO, 2001. Available from:
www.unido.org/userfiles/kaufmanC/MartinPaper.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
66. Martin, B. and Johnston, R. (1999), “Technology Foresight for Wiring up the National Innovation System”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60, pp. 37-54.
67. Martin, B.R. (1995), “Foresight in science and technology”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 139-168.
68. Martin, B.R. and Irvine, J. (1989), Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in Science, London:Pinter Publishers.
69. Meng, H. and Luo, Y. (1999), “Foresight in Taiwan: A Knowledge-Developing Intelligence for 21st Century” , Present at International Conference on Science and Technology Foresight, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
70. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1990), Science and technology in the Federal Republic of Germany, Longman Guide to World Science and Technology, Harlow: Longman.
71. Miles, I. (2005), “UK foresight: three cycles on a highway”. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 2(1), pp.1 -34.
72. Mitchell, R.; Agle, B.; Wood, D. (1997), “Towards a theory of stakeholder
identification: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853–886.
73. Nedeva, M. Loveridge, D. and Cameron, H.M. (1994), “Experts in foresight-the use of co-nomination to identify experts to participate in the United Kingdom technology foresight programme”, R&D Management, 26(2), pp.155-168.
74. Nobel, C.H. (1999), “The eclectic roots of strategy implementation”, Journal of Business Research, 45, pp.119-134.
75. Office of Science and Technology. (1993), Realising our Potentials- A strategy for Science, Engineering, and Technology, London: Department of Trade and
Industry.
76. Ormerod, P. (2001), “Deepening of foresight exercises having taken place in 6 countries- United Kingdom”, In: OST and CEST (Ed.), Monitoring Foresight Activities, Seville, Spain: European Science and Technology Observatory.
Available from: http://esto.jrc.es/docs/foresight2.pdf [accessed 23 April 2006].
77. Poitras, J. and Bowen, E. (2002), “A framework for understanding consensus-building initiation”, Negotiation Journal, 18(3), pp. 211-231
78. Porter, A. L. et. al. (2004), “Technology future analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, pp.
287-303.
79. Rader, M. (2003), Sweden- The foresighted society 1998-2000. FISTERA report.
Avaible from:
http://www.itas.fzk.de/eng/projects/fistera/wp1case/d1.1se-0304.htm[accessed 24 April 2006].
80. Ramírez, R. (1999), “Stakeholder analysis and conflict management”, In Buckles, D. (1999) Cultivating Peace: Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Management, IDRC/World Bank. ebook.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-27971-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html[accessed 24 January 2006].
81. Riehm, U. (2003), Germany- FUTUR, der deutsche forschungsdialog 2001-2002, FISTERA report. Available from:
http://www.itas.fzk.de/eng/projects/fistera/wp1case/d1.1de-0304.htm [accessed 23 March 2006].
82. Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995), Managing Technology in Society:
The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. New York: St Martin’s Press.
83. Röling, N.; Wagemakers, M., ed. (1998), Facilitating sustainable agriculture:
participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
84. Salo, A., Konnola, T, and Hjelt, M., (2004), “Responsiveness in foresight
management: reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry”, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (1-2), pp. 70-88.
85. Saunders, H.H. (1985) We need a larger theory of negotiation: the importance of pre-negotiating phases. Negotiation Journal 1(3), 249-262.
86. Schomberg, R. (2002), “The objective of sustainable development: are we coming closer?”, Foresight Working Papers Series No. 1, European Commission, DG for Research, Unit K-2, Brussels.
87. Schot, J. (1998), “Constructive Technolgoy Assessment Comes of Age: The birth of a new politics of technology”, In A. Jamison (Ed), Technology Policy Meets the Public (PESTO paper II)(pp. 207-232): Aalborg University.
88. Sexty, R.W. (2004), “Approaches to Understanding Stakeholder Relations”, http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~rsexty/business8107/StakeholderRelations.htm [accessed 5 January 2006]
89. Slaughter, R. (1995), The Foresight Principle. London: Adamantine Press.
90. Snow, D. A. and Rochford, E. B., (1984), “Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement participation”, American Sociological Review, 51, pp. 464-481.
91. Stewart, D. and Green, B. (2004), “The Foresight Process in
Practice”,http://www.busi.mun.ca/vectorchair/Foresight_process1.htm[accessed 12 January 2006].
92. STRATA-ETAN EXPERT GROUP (2002), “Mobilising the regional foresight potential for an enlarged European union” [online],
http://www.observ.cf.ac.uk/downloads/mrfp/regional_foresight_en.pdf [Access 20 March 2006].
93. Tegart, G. (2003), “Technology foresight: philosophy & principles”, Innovation:
Management, Policy and practice, 5(2), pp. 279-285.
94. Tegart, G. (2003), Technology foresight: philosophy and principles. Innovation:
Management, Policy & Practice 5(2/3), pp. 279-285.
95. Thomlison, B.M. (1992), “Environmental consumerism must meet needs of corporate stakeholders”, Marketing News, 26(9), p. 12.
96. Van der Meulen, B. (1999), “The impact of foresight on environmental science and technology policy in the Netherlands”, Future, 31, pp. 7-23.
97. van der Meulen, B. and Lohnberg, B. (2001), “The use of foresight: institutional constraints and conditions”, International Journal of Technology Management, 21(7/8), pp. 680-693.
98. Voros, J. (2003), “A generic foresight process framework”, Foresight, 5(3), pp.
10-21.
99. Wyatt, R. (1999), Computer-aided Policymaking, London: E & FN Spon.
100. Yankelovich, D. (1999), The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation, New York, Simon and Schuster.
101. Zigrus, H. and Buckland, B.K.(1998), “A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness”, MIS Quarterly, 22(3), pp. 313-334.
附錄一、國外前瞻活動案例
(一) 美國—Report on National Critical Technologies(1995)
1. 推動單位：國家關鍵性科技委員會
2. 承辦單位：美國蘭德公司(RAND Corporation) 3. 當時所面臨之問題
在產業方面，美國的許多產業在 1960 年代末期開始喪失它們的競爭優 勢，1971 年是美國進入 20 世紀以來，進出口貿易首次出現赤字的一年。這種 現象直到1970 年代末期，藉由美元貶值仍無法遏止。此外，數十年來持續上 漲的工資，也在1973 年開始走平而後下跌，長期且穩健提升的生產力也出現 了疲態。然而，美國產業的平均生產力如果不是全球最高，至少也是第一流 的。在電腦、軟體、生物科技等既新又重要的產業中，美國保持最強大的競 爭優勢。另外，美國亦擁有強大的日用品產業，並在服務業居主導地位，在 國際市場中，消費與商業性服務產業，除了貨運和旅遊兩個產業外，美國企 業繼續扮演著產業龍頭或領先群倫的角色。然而，整體而言，美國產業出現 逆流是不爭的事實，像在汽車、卡車、工具機、半導體、消費型電子等許多 精密製造業中，美國的競爭力的確是在大幅衰退中，美國經濟成長升級的步 調也是顯得步履蹣珊。美國企業在各類產業中不斷喪失競爭優勢，最重要的 癥結在於它們缺乏活動力。產品改善、創新的能力與速度明顯不如其他國家；
整個產業的升級速度，在只考慮守成或維持有利益的前提下，也是緩步不前。
美國的競爭弱點在於科技商品化速度太慢，而這部份涉及到生產因素的創新 機制不足、國內需求品質下降、缺乏具有競爭力的上游產業、缺乏長期經營 的事業目標，這些因素都影響到美國此時期科技商品化的速度。
在技術發展方面，由於美國各界普遍認爲科學技術發展要順其自然，在
20 世紀 70～80 年代，美國政府主要採取間接手段來指導和支援科學技術的發 展。具體措施包括：建立有利於技術進步和工業技術發展的法律規定，輔之 以相應的稅收、關稅和貸款政策，並通過相關政府單位向重要的研究開發專 案提供資助，再通過政府貸款和採購政策支援私營企業開展技術成果的商品 化。由於沒有全國性的、由政府制訂的、有明確策略性目標和優先發展的技 術領域以及相應投資策略的綜合科學技術政策，致使美國從70 年代開始逐漸 喪失許多科技優勢，並造成經濟競爭力的下降。尤其到了80 年代，美國的技 術優勢和經濟競爭力受到日本和西歐諸先進國家的嚴重威脅。美國人體認 到，要保持其在競爭中的領先地位，必須不斷開發新技術，並有效地把這些 技術商品化。
雖然技術預測始於美國，但美國政府將重點放在國家關鍵技術選擇上。
根據1990 財年美國國防授權法，美國白宮科技政策辦公室(Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP) 指 定 組 織 國 家 關 鍵 性 科 技 委 員 會 (National Critical Technologies Review Group)，在研究後提出「美國國家關鍵技術報 告」。按照國會要求，該報告需闡述美國技術基礎的狀況，選擇重點領域，考 慮改進策略。由於這項研究所涉及的內容極其複雜，美國政府採取的方法是 逐漸産生一些連續性的報告，以爲科技決策和選擇優先發展領域提供支撐。
4. 當時科技政策方向
科技政策以競爭力為導向，目標為：
科技政策以競爭力為導向，目標為：