The overall foresight model that focuses on consensus forming

The

Overall Foresight Model that Focuses

on

Consensus Forming

Benjamin

Yuan

,

Tsai-Hua Kang' ,Chien

Ching

ChangI

IInstitute

ofManagementof Technology of National ChiaoTung

University, Taiwan,

R.O.C

2Department

of Computer and Communication Engineering ofDeLinInstitute of Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C

Abstract--Due to global competition and rapid technological advancement, foresight has become an important method of formulating technological policies. Consensus forming is one of the benefits of the foresight procedure as it allows the society to effectively understand a technology's characteristics during its initial developmental stage. Also, foresight effectively guides the development of a technology, eliminating the dilemma of being unable to manage the technology's future influences. Focusing on consensus forming, this study analyzes foresightthrough different stages: a macro model thatfocuses on consensus forming has been proposed in thisstudy in order forus tounderstand theinfluence of different factors onforesight planning. Thecontentofconsensus forming may include areas such as the possible future, the beneficial future, the preferable future, the current action plan, and its development andpromotion.

I. FOREWORD

Since the 1990s, the rapid advancement of technology

and globalization have brought forth great impact upon different nations' economic development. National policies, especial technological policies, no longer adopt a passive

styleof management butan active method ofplanning for the sake of better resource utilization [6] [11] [16].

Martin and Johnston [10] believe that there are three

majorforces that putforesight onceagainunder the spotlight

inthe 1990s and make itaccepted bydifferent nations:

(1) The pressure of competition in free market: Due to

globalization, the number ofcompetitors has increased,

and a nation must compete with other competitors (or nations)that have differentproductioncosts,resulting in greater competitive pressure. For example, Japan's method of developing technologies by utilizing the entire nation'sresourceshas putalot of pressure in other nations. Therefore, innovations in knowledge-based

industries and the service sectors have become more

importantthan before. Facingthis kind of

pressure,

how the government reacts in terms of science and

technological applications becomesmoresignificant. (2) Governmental expenditures inindustrialized nations: As

thepopulationages,moresocial benefits areneeded, and

each expense must be explained and proven necessary. As the cost of technological development becomes

higher, nocountry is ableto pursue all theopportunities

for technological development. Under democratic

budgeting, technology related budget must also follow the same rules. Technological foresight provides a

mechanism in which differentactors canparticipate and reach a consensus, making better connections between

technological development, economy,andsociety. (3) The nature of the knowledge-construction process is

changing: New knowledge often focuses on the

combination of"transdisciplinary" and "heterogeneity," especially in the field ofapplications. Justlike how the industrial development requires strategic alliance, the Internet, and innovative national systems, the field of

applied science also requires knowledge developers to

jointly communicate, collaborate, and conduct research. Good interactions are not only needed between researchers but also between researchers and users such as governments, businesses, and individuals, and

foresight isrequiredto facilitate this kind of interactive process.

As for the order of this process, since most modern nationsadopt the democratic system, the development of

technological policies must reach a consensus between the stakeholders before they can be approved in the congress orother relevantorganizations. Anotherreason

for this is that the rapid changes inthe environment and

technologieshave exceeded thegovernment's capability. Therefore, foresight stresses on the participation and utilization of social groups in order to ensure the integrity of the policies and the support for future

implementation.

Collingridge'sDilemmaTheory

According to the theory proposed by Collingridge [3] thatexplainsthe process of managementinnovation, thereare twopossibleconflicts:

(1) As the technological innovations, including the R&D process, continue to develop, the space of freedom becomes smaller. As thetechnologies keeponadvancing,

many possibilities in the next stage ofdevelopment get eliminated.

(2) The public will know more and more about

technological innovations, especially when the R&D processhas reached the latter stages.

Collingridge's dilemma theory tries to depict that it is difficulttomanageatechnology'sfuture influences. Unless a technology or an innovation has beenwidely used,wewould

not be able to understand its influence and effect. A technology that has already developed and matured is already tightly connected with a society, leaving fewer possibilities

for changes. In other words, the future management of

technological development involves the problems of information and authority. The problem with information is that unless a technology has been widely developed and

utilized, its influence would be difficultto bepredicted. The

problem ofauthorityis that afteratechnologyhas developed,

it would be difficult to control or change its course of

development [14].

David Collingridge has proposed that in order to solve this dilemma, we shoulddevelop atechnology that ishighly

flexible and can be applied in different ways. He proposes that a technological development should quickly adapt to a society and the subscribers' different demands. However, developing this kind of technology in the actual world is very difficult since the cost oftechnological development and the target-oriented characteristic of innovation have reduced the flexibility of a technology in its development.

Schot [15] believes that in order to solve this problem, we need to be able to makepredictions more frequently and as early as possible. Aprocess oftechnological development should allow continuous learning and adjusting in order to create greater experimental flexibility. Collingridge's

dilemma theory points out the serious inefficiency of the early warning effect in technological management. Since there is no sufficientknowledgeandauthoritythat canchange

the direction oftechnological development, the only thing our society can do is to improve its responsive capability [4].

Therefore, in order to solve this dilemma, the entire

society needs to establish an effective understanding of a

technology's future development. During theearly stage of a

technological development when the society and the R&D group still enjoy intimate interactions, we would see better results in influencing the ultimate direction of a technological

developmentsince the effects of social influence wouldbegin

totakeplacewhile there is still ahigh degree offlexibility in thetechnological development.

Agrafiotis et al. [1] has pointed out that if the society can establishan effective understanding ofatechnology's future directions during its earlier developmental stage, the

development of this technology can be effectively guided, solving the previously mentioned dilemma. Gow [5] points

outthat in order torespondtothechallenges broughtforthby

this dilemma, actions in three aspects need to be conducted

simultaneously: analytical, political, and normative. Analytical actions refer to understanding the dynamic of a

technological developmentinacomplicated environment and the momentum, method, and motive behind it. Political actions refertounderstanding the composition, participation,

and intervention of the stakeholders in orderto ensurethat all

appropriate perspectives have been taken into consideration. Normative actions refer to considering social values and cultural habits and their changes when a decision is suitable forasociety.

II. DIFFERENT TYPES OF FORESIGHT MODELS

Since the 1950s(after WWII),the U.S. has startedusing the method of foresight as a supplement in the decision making process for the government's technological R&D system [8]. Japan has also adoptedthe Delphi Method since the 1970s in order to conduct an estimation of the trend of

technological developmentonceevery 5years [12].

However, since thetechnique itself had low continuity,

the process ofmaking predictions ofagiven technology sees

many limitations. Moreover, important technological developments are often the results of the integration and

international exchange of each domain's own advancement.

Using the prediction ofa single technology as a basis for

formulating policies often yields unsatisfactory results. Therefore, since the mid-1980s, more and more people have proposed the idea of replacing "technological predictions" with making "technological foresights" [7]. Technological foresight does not focus on technologies but the perspective of "satisfying human needs" and future demands. Through a systematic process, it studies our future technological, social, and economic changes, and the results can be used for making decisions regarding technological

policiesormanagement.

Although during the operational process, the analytical methods used in making foresights are mostly derived from the methods ofmaking technological predictions. However, the purpose of "foresight" is to be more systematic, more user-oriented, and more influential than technological predictions, rather than for understanding the technical

changesin asingledomain.

We canunderstand what foresight really is through the models proposed by different scholars. Using Gow's

perspective [5], foresight models can be put into four

categories:macro,analytical, political,andnormative.

A.MacroAspect

The foresight model of the macro aspect that explains the overall foresight activity helps us understand the orientation and content offoresight. Inthe following models, the "future cone"l explainsthe temporal features offoresight (long-term perspective). The "foresight triangle" explains the three important elements in the foresight activity as well as their combinations. The "integrated foresight model" explains the levels and contents in theforesight study.

(1) Future Cone

Proposed by Voros [19], the future cone (see Fig. 1) mainly explains foresight's long-term perspective. He

points out that foresight attempts to analyze the differences between different types of future. This cone explains that what foresight does is for us to see the future from today and to distinguish the differences in different futures. Moreover, this model also stresses that future prospects are jointly conducted by different stakeholders who identify the preferable future that is

approved by the society and employ different actions

plans in order to materialize the preferable future. The futurecanbeplacedinthefollowing categories:

A. Possible Future: The future that couldhappen.

B. Plausible future: The future that might happen in

general.

C. Probable future: The future that wouldhappen when

thegivenconditions remainroughlythesame. D. Preferable future: The future desiredbythedesigner. Foresight analysis distinguishes the differences between different kinds offuture, defines a society's preferable future,and looks for the necessary actions.

Pa

btle

P Ia 7

Fig.1Diagram of theFutureCone Source: Voros[19]

(2) Foresight Triangle

Proposed by Loveridge [9], the Foresight Triangle (see Fig. 2) explains the three necessary elements in the

foresight procedure, andagoodforesight activityshould maintain the balance of these elements. "Expertise" refers to the ability ofconnectingthepossible future and the existingtechnical challenges. "Creativity" is usedto challenge the existing beliefs and investments. "Interaction" is to let stakeholders' individual predictions interact with the possiblefuture. Placing too much weight on any of the elements would cause the

foresight to fail. Too much expertise would lead to

biasedresults,toomuchcreativityturn the process intoa

science fiction, and too much interaction between

participantswouldcausetheactivitytolose its focus and let the available resources go to waste.

EXPERTt INTERACTION

Fig.2 Diagram of Foresight Triangle

Source: Vander Meulen[18]

In this study, the different methods for conducting

foresight have been placed in the triangle's different locations in order to express their different features. A planner can try different combinations to ensure that the

foresight activityhas included these three characteristics. (3) IntegratedForesightModel

Alsan and Oner [2] have organized an Integrated Foresight Model from many literatures, including three levels and four elements that are used to explain the content of the foresight activity (see Fig. 3). The three levels are normative, strategic, and operative; the four

elements are knowledge, people, system, and

organization.

The Integrated Foresight Model lists foresight's

important aspects, and it can be used to plan, evaluate,

andexplainthe process. Itisan importantcontentmodel usedtoexplainforesight.

amPeple

orgtabin

-MtchtchrIlgyandsoci

Carictinoth~e runmbefof sbwas

Intet4i useofpdn6iV

A

Focrusods mranagemn

I

lRedeinelihed-epiq,enloIfrew

4

D.nspifhfolik vpacti ' V... -W I

h

Reeieihe fmusofC.@

UFseber ecNu

Fig.3DiagramofIntegrated ForesightModel Source: Alsan and Oner[2]

I

qi 0

a

0t li_ m

TI

sysu

B.AnalyticalAspectModel

The Analytical Aspect Model looks at foresight from an analytical aspect, and its main purpose is to discuss the factors that are used inanalyzing the future considerations or theanalytical process. It helps us understand the perspectives that we should take when we conductforesight analysis. The factors that influence technical foresight are listed below,

whichexplainthe implementationof the Integrated Foresight

Model and the two necessary forces. Technical Future Analysis categorizes different analytical methods, whereas the General Foresight Framework explains a foresight's

procedures and the analytical steps.

.CBanmd-put

(1) Factors that Influence Technical Foresight

Tegart [17] has identified the factors that influence foresight as the "demand-pull" and the "science/technology-push" (see Fig. 4). The

"science/technology-push" includes scientific and

technological strengths and resource and opportunities.

The "demand-pull" includes the economic, social, and environmental needs and resources. This model shows that aforesight simultaneously integrates social demands and technical supplies and looks for ajunction where differentperspectivescanbe satisfied.

.CSdmIeteKbdm1!gy-push

Fig.4 Factorsthat InfluenceForesight Analysis

Source:Tegart[17]

(2)

TechnologicalFutureAnalysis

The method of "future analysis" proposed byPorter etal. [13] has put the methods of future research into the

following categories: creativity, indicators andnarrations, statistics, expert ideas, monitoring and intelligence compilation, model construction andsimulation, context analysis, trend analysis, and evaluating economic

policies. These categories can be quantified or qualified

based on their content. Moreover, they can also be

distinguished based on the explorative and normative

nature. Foresight often includes different kinds of combination that match the analytical content required bythe relevantpolicies. This modelexplainsthecontent

and categories of the methods available to the foresight

process.

(3) GeneralForesightFramework

The GeneralForesight Framework proposed byVoro [19] explains the analyticalprocess and common methods in theforesight process (see Fig. 5). The GeneralForesight

Framework utilizes a strategic planning perspective that views theforesightprocessas asystem,and the output of which needs to be transformed into an actual strategy that influences a society and the future direction of a technology. Theforesightprocess canbe divided into the 3 stages of analysis, interpretation, and prospection,

which involve different methods. The General Foresight

Frameworkexplainsthecomplexityofforesight analysis,

and the entire process is consisted of different methods. Each stage focuses on different things and utilizes different methods.

-

utputs

Strategym

Dophi,Near-FutureContext

EmergingIssues,Trends Crosa mpactAnalysis

SystemsThilking

Caus LaryedAnalygis

Normativemehod akast Repo s Presenttis

Wh4sops,Mulmedia

StragyDeveliopmt&

Strateg Planning-I

inflvidua workgroup, organistkof 1o et ut.

Fig.5Voros'GeneralForesight Framework

Source: Voros[19]

III.FORESIGHT INTEGRATION

FRAMEWORK-REACHING CONSENSUS

Foresight is about looking into the future andmaking a systematicobservation for the sake ofshapingabetter future.

Foresight isnotlimitedto asingle future; there canbe many

choices, but only one of them will happen based on the actions we take now. Technical foresight is about choosing

the future we want andinvesting in the needed resources. Based on these ideas, we have organized different foresight models and proposed a Foresight Integration Model that is focused on consensus forming. This model can be used for the planning and analysis of consensus forming that takes

place in foresight activity. This framework has integrated analytical behaviors, political behaviors, and normative behaviors, and is an integrative framework that focuses on stakeholders' participation and consensus forming (see Fig. 6).

Creativityand Innovation

X-..~ Possible Future

Fig.6TheForesight Integration Model basedonConsensusForming

Source:This Research.

This model is a continuousprocedure that begins with a

certain topic. Foresight is a topic-oriented or

problem-oriented activity, and the foresight procedure only

begins when stakeholders participate. The possible starting points of the foresight procedure may be the emphasis on

innovation and creativity, expertise or analysis, or the combination of the first two. During the process, different groups go through discussions, analysis, and interactions before they finally reach a consensus regarding the good (preferred) future and interpersonal network. They then put the conclusion offoresight into action untilnewtopics come

up.The bottom half of the diagramis the feedbackprocedure,

inwhich new topics are compared with the good (preferred)

future goals. This cycle continues to go on, and the groups that continue to adjusttheir actions establish new consensus

and norms,allowingabrightfuturetomaterialize.

Foresight analysis can be conducted from different

angles. One is from an expert andanalytical angle, inwhich

data, models, and experts' opinions are used to estimate the future. The extreme end is the establishment ofa model of future simulation whichrequiresgreat expertiseandanalysis.

Anotherangleisonefromcreativityandinnovation, inwhich normative thinking or group discussions are used to discuss

the future possibilities. The most extremeexample is science fiction. Foresight can be initiated from either angle or from both angles. Using differentmethods,the process maynotbe

astraight line; it may be acurved line in which stakeholders'

consensusand networkarereached via discussions.

Tothe researchers: This includes researchers in the field ofpolicies orothers. This model focuses on the interactions between stakeholders in the foresight process, consensus forming, and the network for pursuing the common goals.

This model helps researchers analyze the less talked about

politicaland normative aspects fromasystematic perspective.

Moreover, this model introduces different methods into the

foresight process that facilitate the development of more practical tools for planning and solve the difficulties in

planningcausedby multiplemethods. REFERENCES

[1] Agrafiotis, D., Vagianou-Angelaki, D., Paschali, N., and Maina, A.

(1994), "The Scenario Workshop Methodology: The case ofCorfu", Sustainable UrbanLivingintheComing Decades,5-7May1994.

[2] Alsan, A., and Oner,M.A. (2004), "An integrated view of foresight: integrated foresightmanagementmodel", Foresight, 5(2),pp. 33-45.

[3] Collingridge, D. (1980), The Social Control of Technology, London:

[4] Eijndhoven, J.V. (1997), "Technology Assessment: Process or

Product?", Technological Forecasting and Social Change,54(2,3),pp. 269-286.

[5] Gow, G. A. (2005), "Policymaking for Critical Infrastructure: a case

study on strategic interventions in public safety telecommunications, Burlington,VT, USA:Ashgate.

[6] 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. [7] Irvine,J. and Martin, B. R. (1984), Foresight inScience: Picking the

Winners, London: Pinter.

[8] Linestone, H.A. (1999), Decision-making forTechnologyExecutives:

Using Multiple PerspectivestoImprovePerformance, Norwood, MA:

ArtechHouse.

[9] 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.

[10] Martin, B. R., and Johnston, R. (1999), "Technology Foresight for Wiringupthe National InnovationSystem",Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 60(1),pp. 37-54.

[11] Martin, B. (2001), "Technology foresight in a rapidly globalizing economy",In:Regional ConferenceonTechnology Foresightfor CEE

and NIS countries 4-5 April 2001, Vienna, Austria: UNIDO, 2001. Available from: wf.

[12] Office of Science and Technology (1993), Realising our Potentials- A

strategy for Science, Engineering, and Technology, London:

Department of Trade and Industry.

[13] Porter, A. L. et al. (2004), "Technology future analysis: toward

integration of the field and new methods", Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 71(3), pp. 287-303.

[14] Rip, A., Misa, T. and Schot, J. (Ed.) (1995), Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. New York: St Martin's Press.

[15] Schot, J. (1998), "Constructive Technolgoy Assessment Comes of Age: The birth of a new politics of technology", In A. Jamison (Ed),

Technology PolicyMeetsthe Public (PESTOpaperII) (pp.207-232): Aalborg University.

[16] Slaughter, R. (1995), The Foresight Principle. London: Adamantine Press.

[17] Tegart, G. (2003), "Technology foresight: philosophy & principles",

Innovation: Management, Policy and practice, 5(2), pp. 279-285. [18] Vander Meulen,B.(1999), "The impact of foresightonenvironmental

science andtechnology policyintheNetherlands",Future,31,pp. 7-23. [19] Voros, J.(2003), "Ageneric foresightprocess framework", Foresight,