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

2. Some conference keywords
Grand challenges
Transformations
Disruptive
Adaptation
Alignment

3. 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”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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!

10. 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

11. Certified Knowledge and the Importance of Accumulation