CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR GOVERNMENT LED FORESIGHT Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th - 17th October 2008 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR GOVERNMENT LED FORESIGHT Jonathan Calof, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa. Jack Smith, Defence R&D Canada, Government of Canada.

Foresight Survival Guide: “avoiding being shut down” “In my experience the vast majority of so-called Foresight exercises are really nothing more than forecasting or scenario-building, usually on an isolated or one-off basis. Unless you make a long-term commitment to Foresight you get little value from it.” (Foresight stakeholder comment- study conclusion Canada)

2005-06 Foresight Best Practices Study In 2005-06 we studied best practices of foresight design and delivery in nine international locations; Based on this we recommended a series of critical requirements and factors that must be present to assure effective foresight and its continuity; Based on our “success” findings, in 2006 we predicted hard times ahead for Canada’s foresight office. On March 31, 2008 the S&T Foresight Directorate office was shut down when the National Science Advisor role was terminated.

Foresight Success – Past Studies How to define Foresight success Direct benefits e.g. policy impact Indirect benefits e.g. networks that survive What are the requirements for Foresight success Foresight process Project design, delivery Organization design Engagement dynamics

For Our Study – Best Practices Should Lead To: Actionable policy guidance and policy impacts; Transferable intelligence for business; Budget growth; Further requests from policy ministries; Program stability and recognition; Transcend regime changes.

What Are Best Practices? Our Approach Phase 1: Survey practitioners to identify the foresight organizations they admire most. Phase 2: Interviews with the directors of those organizations to discuss how they were formed, budget, best practices, how they evolved, etc. Phase 3: Look for consistent patterns in the qualitative data. Phase 4: Replicate the study with more organizations.

The Initial Study Objective: to identify best practices in Foresight around the world. Telephone and email survey of leading experts. Interviews with representatives of leading foresight programs: FORFAS (Ireland), APEC Center for Technology Foresight (Thailand), Finland (FINNSIGHT), United Kingdom (UKFO), Japan (NISTEP), China (Shanghai).

Questions Asked What is the national foresight mandate? Who are the key clients of national foresight? What is the foresight relationship to government policy and economic decision-making? What is the foresight funding model? What levels of resources has foresight received? How are foresight resources allocated? What is the foresight project selection process? What have been the main impacts of the foresight program? How has the foresight program evolved over time? Do you have a foresight wish list?

Lessons Learned From the First Study Focus on a clearly identified client Clear link between foresight and today’s policy agenda Direct links to senior policy makers Provides methodologies and skills that are not always used in other departments Clear communication strategy Integration of stakeholders in programs

Second Study Replication with additional sites Updating Further probing Validation Added Sites: Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, France,

Second Study: Questions Asked (1-5) What motivated your government's foresight efforts in the first place? Needs? Challenges ? Who did your country look to when starting its national foresight efforts? Did you need to build a business case for foresight in your government? How? What were the direct outcomes from your National Foresight initiative? Is there an annual budget for a national foresight program or foresight support in your country? Amount?

Second Study: Questions Asked (6-10) Is financial support for foresight in your country stable. growing or decreasing in 2007-2008? # of full time equivalent staff per year that work in the National foresight program? (2007) Is there a foresight support agency (or department) in your government? Is there a central foresight web page? Link? In your opinion, has your country done anything unique that is making foresight work in your context or culture? Critical Success Factors? What has your country done in various foresight initiatives (national, supra-national, regional or sector) to promote public participation?

A General Conclusion Consistent with the first study Proper methodology is key but most are using similar methodologies to approach a similar range of projects Some like the UK have enlarged the policy space with horizontal initiatives Reviewing all the data from the nine countries, we were surprised by the similarity in foresight processes used from country to country, as was suggested by one of the interviewees. “ The real problem is not knowing what different countries do - which is not much different from country to country - but determining how or if the results of Foresight were integrated into policy making in real time. If this is not done, then the exercise is of minimal or no value.”

Basic Conclusion Proper methodology is key but most are doing similar methodologies. Similar ranges of projects So for foresight “success” Don’t focus as much on the methodologies of foresight – we know the methodologies, (well researched, well understood, and well practiced).

Occasionally New Approaches-Innovations Were Introduced The Austrian Delphi (96-98) designed a process with two separate but parallel studies-A Technology Foresight & a separate Society & Culture Delphi, UK Foresight Office: Horizon and Delta Scans Millennium Project, Open Delphi - an ongoing consultation on the State of the Future, using the internet by the Millennium Project Council. Japan ( NISTEP) has been the only country in the world that has continuously for 35 years repeated the same technology foresight exercise–the extensive Delphi USA has also done a biannual Technology foresight since 1991 called USA - New forces at work. A collection of opinions from industry on critical future technologies and the direction of technological development. Sponsored by Office of Science and Technology Policy, and partnered with RAND, Science & Technology Policy Institute, & Industry partners Parliament of Finland, has a Committee for the Future that initiates Technology Assessment & Technology Foresight studies on various topics France, with its prospective school of foresight has a long history and tradition of S&T foresight exercises.

Is it the Motivation for Foresight That Makes a Difference? Motivations are different between countries Most frequent motivations: crisis; political change, proactive leadership, globalization impacts But…foresight needs to survive beyond one political term – thus initial motivation is largely irrelevant “Whatever the last government did, rest assured we will do it differently”

Second Study Added One Critical Factor for Success Need a national-local academic receptor capability for foresight skills and training – hiring from abroad is fine for startup but you need local sounding board and capacity Academics connect with stakeholders, provide legitimacy and know the methodology Academics are good promoters of forward knowledge and innovation challenges

Conclusions of the Two Studies – Foresight CSF’s In addition to methodology/skills: Focus on a clearly identified client Clear link between foresight and today’s policy agenda Direct links to senior policy makers Provides methodologies and skills that are not always used in other departments Clear communication strategy Integration of stakeholders in programs Academic receptor

Applying CSFs to Canada World class methodology/skills - Yes Significant clear client: Partially present Link to current policy agenda: Restricted - limited direct evidence Links to senior policy makers: Some, but not a critical mass – and shifted rapidly; Public-private connections, stakeholder integration: Evident Communications strategy: Limited – no $ Academic receptors: Some, but immature Result: Foresight budget decreases in 2005-07 and the Foresight Office was shut down in 2008.

Survival is the imperative – Overall Conclusion Methodology is important but on its own is insufficient to guarantee impact or survival; Stakeholders are the key to continuity and engagement, and obtaining sustainable resources + an adaptive structure; Communications is key – but needs dedicated resources; The right (well connected) champion is critical! Benchmarking is dangerous as each country will have unique organizational challenges; Projects are different due to different national needs, and sectoral/competitive diversity. Overall best practices and focus are country specific and project specific; Survival is the imperative – resistance is futile

Issues For the Future Validation needed in additional national settings; Implications for multi-national collaborations; More depth on how success factors can vary from one context to another; Rich stories on successful engagement of stakeholders + how policy makers embrace; Communications strategies that work; Academic and industrial linkages; Survival dynamics through government regime change; Foresight is inherently designed to be borderless; Networks are the lifeblood of foresight – rely upon sharing information so need an inventory of ways to better use ICT to do this – lots of new collaborative and intelligent tools emerging ( e.g. Trend Trakker - IFGF: Foresight Network- STFF; RAND Scenario Planner)