1. Adaptive, Embedded, and Disruptive Foresight: Theory and Evidence for a Futures Literacy Approach Riel Miller xperidox futures consulting, Paris, France Philine Warnke Fraunhofer ISI, Germany. Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th- 17th October 2008

2. Recent Foresight theory&practice Three main lines of methodological developments Adaptive/Tailored Foresight –key approach: tailoring Foresight exercise through translating results of collective dialogue into strategic decisions in targeted phase –key enhancement: Better decisions through Foresight with high impact Embedded/Distributed Foresight –key approach: embedding Foresight as an endogenous feature of decision making, many Foresight elements instead of single fully fledged projects (invisible foresight...) –key enhancement: Better organisational capabilities through better aligning Foresight with other strategic processes, better impact Disruptive emergent Foresight –key approach: special methods for hyper-complex subjects –key enhancement: addressing systemic change

3. Why Disruptive Emergent Foresight? Difficulties of classical Foresight to address systemic and disruptive change –actors remain within established lines of visioning targeting –focus on optimisation within the system –clients not interested to have their rationale of operation questioned cope with hyper-complex subjects with –unknown goal –endogenous anticipatory system –systemic discontinuity at stake

4. Disruptive Emergent Foresight - Key Concept Futures Literacy is a way of thinking about the future that is consistent with the principles of an exploratory context – non-probabilistic, spontaneous and experimentalist. the capacity to imagine the present differently using techniques that help identify/escape present assumptions and continuously invent/recount (tell/describe) stories/pictures that establish shared sense making/meaning. to a spontaneous society what text literacy was to industrial society. It is the way to use the reality of complexity, heterogeneity, heterarchy and ambiguity to live freedom responsibly.

5. Futures Literacy Three levels of Futures Literacy Level 1 –Temporal awareness, values, expectations Level 2 –Telling good stories – rules set the assumptions for the narrative frame –Rigorous imagining – a model sets parameters for the analytical frame –Form/function scenarios – operational stories within the frames Level 3 –Using the contrast between imagined futures and the present assumptions to focus on capacity of anticipatory systems to put values into practice now

6. Why DEF and Futures Literacy? Some hypotheses To complement Foresight methodology in order to –cope with reflexivity of modern society –address systemic change needed to address global challenges such as sustainability and learning society –create disruptive innovation capability needed in future learning economies

7. DEF and Adaptive/Embedded foresight A problematic relationship? Some arguments... The more embedding and adaptation the less disruption –“nobody within the system will launch DEF as they don't want to see their own rationale put up for debate” –“the more you are inside the less you can look beyond an existing system” –“linking with ongoing strategy processes will always ensure optimisation of existing system stance” –“DEF activities will always be the small independent provocative type” –“DEF can only work in rare windows of opportunity (BSE crisis)”

8. DEF and Adaptive/Embedded foresight... And some anectdotical evidence Ongoing German Foresight*: strong embedding and adaptation elements –close linkage with all ongoing strategic activities such as High Tech Strategy (up to 10 years), departmental roadmapping... –ongoing activity rather than one-off project –strategic workshops to translate results for strategy building with some departments –FL level zero: No attempt at analysing dynamics of change but rather observation of trend and signals within R&I system (expert interviews, literature research, online survey...) BUT: Signs of disruption emerging from within –collected trends do not fit into existing pattern, results remain unsatisfactory within established perspective, actors feel uneasy to have their own assumptions repeated – regrouping resulted in research topics that clearly transcend existing German landscape and even in some cases directly focus on systemic change * cf. Cuhls et al session II 2

9. Debate Adaptation, Embedding, Disruption - finding the right balance Maybe extreme embedding and adaptation enforces disruption? DEF as “unexpected impact” ? When do we need to push for disruption e.g. through FL approaches, when rely on optimisation?