Luke Georghiou University of Manchester Report and implication of scientific sessions of 4th International Seville Conference on FTA Luke Georghiou University of Manchester

Some conference keywords Grand challenges Transformations Disruptive Adaptation Alignment

In plenary A company that has previously very successfully created change now seeking to adapt to it and return to the driving edge Transformation on the Brazilian economy to world giant status with STI as a main vector for sustainable development Transformations from IT to MT shifting FTA from technology-based to science-based while rate of social change overtakes rate of technological change Challenge to FTA “The tools of the mind become a burden when the environment which made them necessary no longer exists”

On global challenges and innovation systems Anchor paper for Theme 1 noting that GCs are boundary-spanning, address ‘wicked problems’ and do not fit current institutional structures Sessions showing consequent incompatibility with current institutional and governance structures Universities find GCs difficult to use as organisational principle (but room for presentational role) No organisational strategic knowledge (eg in energy systems) across continents so FTA becomes a proxy Administrations wanting FTA to constrain uncertainty to the point where traditional tools may be used Business by contrast seeing GCs as an opportunity

FTA and grand challenges Some inherent difficulties FTA often functions in national or domain-based context (FTA 2008 emphasised Tailoring…) but GCs are transnational and cross-disciplinary and responses FTA conceptually in co-evolution with innovation policy Multiple roles seen in articulating GCs and orchestrating inclusion FTA instead of seeking to manage away uncertainty should accommodate it Innovation foresight model increasingly taking into account the user perspective and need for social shaping Consensus something to work towards but not desirable to achieve – alignment is the realistic objective

FTA itself now challenged Running debate on how FTA should change in terms of its structures and institutions Proliferation of online tools changing underlying business models of FTA itself Web 2.0 platform for exchange of FTA ideas leading to common law definition of foresight as a set of practices and narratives Widening range of applications – in conference from nano to law Expectations analysis before FTA could help gear to future challenges Anticipation of disruptive innovations is the Holy Grail

Constructing challenges Anchor paper 2 indicating a taxonomy of transformations Recognised vs disruptive challenges How to identify new and disruptive? Schrodinger’s cat in the selection of experts – if you choose your experts you have already chosen your challenges Some transformations may be catastrophic – no prior signals Appears to be driving new organisational models of FTA From discrete programmes to embedded units or continuous scanning institutions or capabilities Egs anticipatory culture in RTOs, Competitive Technical Intelligence Unit, EFFLA

Communicating the results Horizon scanning experiences converging on the need for holistic rather than atomistic information Assembling plausible narratives, overarching themes and clusters not lists Developing abilities to perceive interconnectedness Starting point significant in science-business nexus Whichever is selected need to interest or mobilise the other Similar tension between market pull versus technology push

Achieving and measuring impact Different needs for addressing evaluation and impact Shared issues with wider discipline of evaluation in dealing with time-lag and seeking continuity to create opportunity to apply lessons from previous experiences Interdisciplinary nature of challenge-oriented results difficult for traditional governance structures to absorb Problem that consensual FTA is more likely to be absorbed than antagonistic but latter more likely to be of a transformative nature It’s the client stupid!

Combining methods Initial premise that there is a major epistemological divide between qualitative and quantitative approaches largely confirmed Number of interesting efforts to bridge the gap but bridging does not create a common culture More important to explore consensus than to achieve it? Confusion between subjectivity and qualitative – both types can be equally subjective Barriers lie in epistemology, skill and trust Combinations usually scenarios plus X Some combine recognised FTA methods while others bring in insights from other disciplines or techniques rooted in other disciplines

Certified Knowledge and the Importance of Accumulation