Responsiveness in foresight management:
reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry
Ahti Salo*
Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology,
P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT, Finland
E-mail: ahti.salo@hut.fi
*Corresponding author
Totti KoÈ nnoÈlaÈ and Mari Hjelt
Gaia Group Oy, Bulevardi 6 A, 00120 Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: totti.konnola@gaia.fi E-mail: mari.hjelt@gaia.fi
Abstract: Based on experiences from participatory foresight exercises and a
recent foresight study for the Finnish food and drink industries, we
elaborate three overarching objectives for foresight activities, i.e.
*
improved systems understanding
*
enhanced networking
*
strengthened innovation activities.
We also argue that foresight is an inherently creative (and hence uncertain)
activity where success depends on how adequately combinations o f
analytical and communicative methods are adopted in relation to possibly
evolving foresight objectives. Specifically, we postulate that responsiveness
to shifting stakeholder interests and expectations may be required in the
definition and pursuit of foresight objectives; this, in turn, has implications
for decision-making structures and methodological choices. Some of these
implications are highlighted by describing a foresight study for the Finnish
food and drink industries.
Keywords: innovation policy; participatory policy analysis; research and
technology programmes; technology foresight.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Salo, A., Ko
È
nno
È
la
È
, T.
and Hjelt, M. (2004) `Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections
from the Finnish food and drink industry', Int. J. Foresight and Innovation
Policy, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.70±88.
Biographical notes: The research interests of Professor Ahti Salo (MSc 1987,
DTech 1992) inclu de decision analysis, risk management, technology
foresight and technology assessment. He has published extensively on
forecasting methodologies and decision support tools in leading journals
such as Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal
of Forecasting, Int ernational Journ al of Technology Management,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, among others.
Int. J. Foresight and Innovation Policy, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, 200470
Copyright
#
2004 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
© 2004 Inderscience Enterprises. Reprinted with permission from International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 (1-2), 70-88.
Totti Ko
È
nno
È
la
È
, MSc in Environmental Economics, is a Doctoral Student
at the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Helsinki University of Technology
and an Expert in Gaia Group Oy, a Finnish consult ancy specialising in
ene rgy, environmental and technology studies. His do ctoral thesis deals
with inter-or ganisational collaboration and partic ipatory ma nagement of
foresight processes. He was one of the coordinat ors of the foresight
project described in th is paper.
Mari Hjelt, DTech, is an expert in strategic policy issues in the fields of
technology policy, transport and sustainable development. She is the
Leader of the technology and risk analysis business areas in Gaia Group
Oy, a Finnish consultancy. In her research, she focuses on decision support
methods and has extensive knowledge of quantitative modelling tools. She
was the Project Manager of the foresight study described in this paper.
1 Introduction
In recent years, national, regional and sectoral foresight studies have been conducted
in many countries, in order to define research priorities and to look at the future
from a broad range of complementary viewpoints (Hjelt et al., 2001). The locus of
foresight activities has tended to shift from positivist and rationalist technology-focused
approaches towards the recognition of broader concerns that encompass the entire
innovation system, including its societal dimensions (Caracostas and Muldur, 1998;
Gavigan, 2002; Hjelt et al., 2001; Schomberg, 2002). In parallel with this
development, increasing attention has been paid to effective communication and
extensive stakeholder participation, for example, the High Level Expert Group
appointed by the European Commission crystallised these trends by defining
foresight as follows (European Commission, 2002):
``A systematic, participatory, future intelligence gathering and medium-to-
long-term vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and
mobilising joint action.''
One of the strengths of foresight stems from its ability to balance analytic (i.e.
production of factual future-orientated statements) and communicative (i.e. catalysis
of dialogue processes among the stakeholders) approaches in relation to its stated
objectives. Yet, the selection of these approaches and ensuing methodological choices
is not an easy task, given that the different methods (e.g. Delphi-survey, critical
technologies, expert panels, see, e.g. Porter et al., 1991) have their specific advantages
and disadvantages:
*
The Delphi method (Helmer, 1983; Cuhls et al., 2002), for exampl e, gives those
in c harge of the foresight process rigorous methodological control, thus ensuring
that the process does produce a wealth of judgmental statements on the scientific,
technological and other relevant developments. But unless the results are
deliberately subjected to an ensuing debate, interactions among the stakeholders
may remain relatively weak. Without such interactions, it may be difficult to
translate factual results into corresponding actions, or to commit stakeholders to
the implementation thereof (see, e.g. van der Meulen et al., 2003).
Responsiveness in foresight management 71
*
Loosely controlled expert panels, on the other hand, allow the panel members to
engage in intensive deliberation processes (see, e.g. Havas, 2003; Keenan, 2003).
Without adequate methodological support, however, panels may encounter
difficulties in producing concrete and comparable results (`deliverables'). Also,
enhanced communication occurs mostly within the panels which may be at worst
time-consuming, expensive and inefficient in promoting innovativeness and
producing concrete outcomes (Eerola and Holst-Jo
È
rgensen, 2002; Hjelt et al.,
2001).
Given the broad range of issues addressed by most foresight exercises, one of the
defining features of foresight is the creative generation of synthetic knowledge,
whereb y futur e-orienta ted expectations are jointly produced, combin ed and
assimilated by soliciting inputs fr om participants for cri tical reflection. By
construction, such a process of mutual learning and knowledge production asp ires
to be a creative one, as the very raison d'e
Ã
tre of foresight is its ability to provoke
changes in how the participants view their individual and collective futures. These
changes are not some formal output that is produced at the end of the exercise:
rather, they emerge gradually in the c ourse of the process. Most notably, such
changes may be concerned with ± or even invalidate ± the role and objectives that
were initially ascribed to the foresight exercise.
The above observation has two important ramifications for the management of
foresight exercises. Firstly, if foresight is regarded as a creative process which helps
evaluate its own role in an evolving innovation environment, it may be impertinent to
fix foresight objectives for the duration of the entire exercise ± if only because the
foresight exercise produces information on the relevance and attainability of these
very objectives. Secondly, instead of seeking to `fix' the objectives and associated
process design at the outset, those in charge of the foresight process should anticipate
and even prepare for later modifications in the implementation plan. Interestingly
enough, the foresight literature contains several accounts of the tensions arising from
attempts to map out and execute large-scale foresight exercises according to a clear
`blueprint' (see, e.g. Cuhls, 2003; Havas, 2003).
In this setting, we argue that responsiveness to shifting objectives and stakeholder
expectations should be regarded as a major concern and even a key design variable in
the planning and execution of foresight activities. The need for responsiveness ± by
which we mean purposely designed managerial controls for making warranted mid-course
adaptations to foresight objectives and implementation plans ± depends on the
envisaged role that is ascribed to a specific foresight activity in an evolving
innovation environment. Motiv ated by a recent foresight study for the Finnish food
and drink industries, we therefore discuss three overarching objectives of foresight
activity and analyse different manifestations of responsiveness. We also typify
different kinds of foresight activities and derive implications for the execution of
foresight studies and other instruments of strategic policy intelligence.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 elaborates the
notion of responsiveness in relation to three general objectives that are commonly
associated with foresig ht exercises. Section 3 considers manifestations of
responsiveness in a foresight study that was recently carried out for the Finnish
food and drink industries. Section 4 concludes the paper.
A. Salo, T. Ko
È
nno
È
la
È
and M. Hjelt72
2 Foresight objectives
Each foresight exercise is a unique endeavour, enacted in a spe cific context
characterised by its clients, stakeholders and objectives. In search for commonalities
and the general rationale of (technology) foresights, Barre
Â
(2002) emphasises three
general objectives:
*
science and technology priority setting
*
developing the connectivity and efficiency of innovation system
*
creating shared awareness of future technologies.
Van der Meulen et al. (2003) outline a framework for evaluating a major foresight
exercise for the Dutch agricultural sector, whereby they differentiate between impacts
that pertain to
*
envisioning the future
*
organising interaction
*
promoting commitments to actions.
They stress that the systematic explora tion of the future dynamics of science,
technology, economy and society, as well as intensive interaction among the relevant
stakeholders, are prerequisites for the generation of valid action plans to which the
stakeholders can commit themselves. At a conceptual level, Salmenkaita and Salo
(2002) observe that because the generation and assimilation of future-orientat ed
information may entail high costs, innovation systems may suffer from `anticipatory
myopia', which warrants government interventi ons in the form of publicly sponsored
foresight exercises.
While the specific objectives vary from one foresight exercise to another, it is
nevertheless helpful to outline overarching objectives that are applicable to a broad
range of foresight activities. Building on upon the work of Barre
Â
(2002) and van der
Meulen et al. (2003), we therefore consider three interdependent objectives:
*
improved systems understanding
*
enhanced networking
*
strengthened innovation activities.
2.1 Improved systems understanding
In their systemic theories of innovation, researchers such as Edqui st (1997) and
Lundvall (1992) stress the need for a structural understanding of sub-systems, noting
that innovations emerge through a co-evolution of scientific, technological and societal
subsystems. Apart from the performance of individual sub-systems, the innovative
performance of an economy depends on their mutual tuning (Freeman and Soete,
1997; Smits and Kuhlmann, 2002) and, specifically, on ``how [these sub-sy stems]
interact with each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation and
use, and on their interplay with social institutions'' (Smith, 1996). Furthermore,
Responsiveness in foresight management 73
innovation systems exhibit a `memory' or path-dependency (Rosenberg, 1976), as
institutional strengths and weaknesses, too, tend to evolve according to a logic which
is specific to each society (Hollingsworth and Boyer, 1997).
Here, one of the objectives that can be ascribed to foresight is that of helping the
stakeholders share, synthesise and assimilate information about the innovation
system at large, thus allowing them to arrive at an improved understanding of the
(external) con text within which innovations are created and taken into use. Such an
understanding exhibi ts several dimensions, ranging from an awareness of the
structural properties of and interrelationships among the relevant institutional
subsystems, to a recognition of the dynamic processes which govern innovation
processes, including the interplay of social institutions (e.g. values, norms, legal
frameworks). This kind of understanding helps the stakeholders position themselves
in the innovation system, allowing them to take informed decisions when forging
collaborative links to other parts of the system, for example. It also helps consolidate
a shared informational basis that supports the development of joint action plans.
2.2 Enhanced networking
Because much of the knowledge about the innovation system is scattered among
different stakeholders, enhanced networking may be needed to bring in inputs from
different fields of expertise for the development of a systemic vision of the innovation
system, to counter the possibility that ensuing activities are fragmented or even
counterproductive (Tu
È
bke et al., 2001). In order to pave way for these efforts,
foresight activities need to promote enhanced networking among the stakeholders,
for instance by catalysing personal contacts that did not exist before, or by deepening
the qualities of previously established contacts.
Thus, by analogy to Barre
Â
's (2002) typology of foresight studies, developments in
networking can be analysed in terms of extensiveness (e.g. which stakeholders are
placed into contact with each other in the different phases of the foresight exercise, in
one way or another?) and intensiveness (e.g. how intensely are these contacts enacted
in terms of information exchanges and collaboration?). Here, three levels of
stakeholder engagement with respective objectives can be distinguished:
1 Low engagement: stakeholders exchange ideas and perceptions on future
challenges and comment on foresight deliverables, thus contributing inputs to
the exercise which, however, does not necessarily lead to notable changes in their
perceptions.
2 Medium engagement: stakeholders engage in collaborative learning processes
and proactive development of innovative options, to the effect that the
perceptions of individual stakeholders are shaped by these processes (which,
however, do not necessarily lead to the adoption of joint action plans).
3 High engagement: stakeholders are intensively involved in the collaborative
management of the foresight exercise and also assume responsibilities in
contributing to the development and realisation of jointly approved actions plans.
High engagement requires continuous and transparent processes of learning and
trust-building (Cruickshank and Susskind, 1987; Moore, 1996). Such processes,
A. Salo, T. Ko
È
nno
È
la
È
and M. Hjelt74
