1. Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Antoine Schoen, Université Paris Est (LATTS, ESIEE Management) and JRC-IPTS Totti Könnölä, JRC-IPTS Philine Warnke, Fraunhofer ISI Rémi Barré, CNAM University Stefan Kuhlmann, University of Twente Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th- 17th October 2008

2. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Point of departure Current Situation Foresight After long period of –practical learning and exchange of experience –theoretical development fed by diverse disciplines High degree of refinement of methodological framework and respective tools allows for flexible tailoring to purpose and context –in the design (Adaptive/Tailored Foresight) –"on the fly" (Responsive Foresight) Foresight as systemic innovation policy instruments enhancing connectivity & responsiveness and thereby innovation capability. Specifically support to: –Priority setting –Networking –Vision building Consensual or Diversifying } }

3. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Rationale Why tailoring to field characteristics? Different innovation arenas require different governance instruments due to –Different search regimes –Different entry points –Different institutional arrangements –Different degree of complexity needs to be reflected by political system

4. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Capturing field characteristics Description - dimensions adapted from the PRIME project ERA Dynamics ) 1.Institutional Arrangement 2.Knowledge Dynamics

5. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Capturing field characteristics Dimension 1: Institutional Arrangement Three governance arenas: Strategic orientation –Forming of visions & overarching objectives Programming –Thematic priority setting Performance –Doing Research Each arena can be governed in four different modes …

6. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Characterising Institutional Arrangement Possible modes of governance of the three arenas Proactive use of hierarchical structures to implement selected R&I activities Reactive approach of individual entities Optimisation of R&I market conditions Coordination of voluntary engagement in coalitions in order to develop common R&I activities

7. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Sum Up to this point Matching Foresight Objectives to Institutional Arrangement

8. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Capturing field characteristics Dimension 2: Knowledge Dynamics Growth –Of scientific and technological knowledge Divergence –Cumulation of knowledge vs mutiplication of directions of search Complementarity –Need for exchange for cognitive, technical or institutional reasons

9. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Test Cases Case 1 : Field of GM Plants GrowthStrong growth rate DivergenceLimited divergence ComplementarityStrong inter-sectoral complementarities Limited interdisciplinary complementarities Limited shared platforms Strategic orientation arena Leading role from industry – strong ETP Weak scientific steering from EU institutions Importance of legislation and citizen and consumers for the market development. Programming arenaActive ERA Nets and industries as driving forces Performing arenaLimited cooperation – firms have independent research potential

10. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Case 1 : GM Plants Conclusions for a Foresight in this field Need for consensus building/alignment –Participatory visioning, networking, priority setting along the lines of Plants for the Future BUT at the same time Opening up/Diversification/Integration of new elements –Link debate to broader context of future of agricultural system –Consider different possible futures of framework conditions –Debate on alternative pathways and connected value judgements –Diversify innovation trajectories

11. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Test Cases Case 2: Field of Nano Research GrowthStrong growth rate DivergenceStrong divergence ComplementarityStrong inter-sectoral complementarities Strong interdisciplinary complementarities Importance of shared platforms Strategic orientation arena arena Strong steering from EU institutions and from industry. Citizen presence still limited Programming arenaActive ERA Net, new JTI Industries as driving forces Performing arenaStrong private-publics cooperation around clusters. Future inter-clusters links?

12. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Case 2 : Nano Conclusions for Foresight in the field Need for alignment between subsystems –coordinated visioning & priority setting &networking mode to explore synergies Need to integrate societal perspective on steering arena –holistic visioning, socio-technical scenario building Diversification of innovation pathways may be needed to avoid early lock in/irreversibilities Need for creating trusted ground for innovation –Creative participartory visioning

13. Schoen et al: Tailoring Foresight to Field Specificities Conclusions Tailoring Foresight to field specificities Meaningful findings for Foresight design –Both dimensions institutional and arrangement and knowledge dynamics contributed to define foresight objectives and design parameters BUT Needs for refinement –Better capture dynamics of innovation arena –Better capture social embedding and market aspects –Modes of governance not useful for the cases at hand