FTA Assumptions: Methods and Approaches in the Context of Achieving
Outcomes
Michael Rader (Research Centre Karlsruhe, Institute for Technology Assessment and
Systems Analysis and ETEPS AISBL)
Alan Porter (Search Technology, Inc. and Technology Policy and Assessment Centre,
Georgia Tech., USA)
Extended abstract:
FTA activities have a history reaching back at least several decades. Recent interest in most countries
of the world has been aroused by foresight, initially at the national level. Many countries have in the
past decade hosted national foresight exercises, covering a broad ranging of scientific, technological,
and increasingly social, topics. Countries that conduct national foresight studies also pursue other
activities -- some labelled foresight and others bearing names such as technology forecasting or
technology assessment. Due to an aversion to anything suggesting centralised national S&T planning,
the U.S. essentially avoids any broad national foresight studies, but has performed many closely
related analyses.
The label given to an activity does not permit any automatic conclusions on approaches and methods.
Two activities bearing different labels may have greater similarities with respect to process and
methods than two activities bearing the same label, but taking place in a different context. Hence we
endorse the use of the largely neutral umbrella term “Future Oriented Technology Analyses (FTA).”
The activities under this heading pursue diverse goals and can be targeted at different primary and
secondary users. However, they address a range of technology-related subjects, draw on a common
toolbox of methods, and intend to inform decision-making of one kind or another.
The aim of this paper and this stream of the Second International Seminar on Future-Oriented
Technology Analysis is to assemble information to guide selection of approaches and methods for
FTA activities.
The working group which prepared for the first Seville seminar (Technology Future Analysis Methods
Working Group, 2004) proposed a typology consisting of 51 methods arranged in 9 “families,”
modified slightly by Porter (2005b) into 48 methods in 13 families (Table 1).
Table 1: Future-oriented Technology Analysis Methods
Methods Families
Sample Methods
Creativity Approaches
Monitoring & Intelligence
Descriptive
Matrices
Statistical Analyses
Trend Analyses
Expert Opinion
Modeling & Simulation
Logical/ Causal Analyses
Roadmapping
Scenarios
Valuing/Decisionaiding/Economic Analyses
Combinations
TRIZ, Future workshops, Visioning
Technology Watch, Tech Mining
Bibliometrics, Impact checklists, State of the Future Index, Multiple Perspectives
Assessment
Analogies, Morphological analysis, Cross-Impact analyses,
Risk Analysis, Correlations
Growth curve modeling, Leading Indicators, Envelope Curves, Long wave models
Survey, Delphi, Focus groups, Participatory approaches
Innovation Systems descriptions, Complex Adaptive Systems modeling, Chaotic
regimes modeling, Technology Diffusion or Substitution analyses, Input-Output
modeling, Agent-based modeling
Requirements analysis, Institutional analyses, Stakeholder analyses, Social Impact
Assessment, Mitigation strategizing, Sustainability Analyses, Action analyses
(Policy assessment), Relevance Trees, Futures Wheel
Backcasting, Technology/Product Roadmapping, Science Mapping
Scenario Management, Quantitatively based scenarios
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Multicriteria Decision Analyses
Scenario-Simulation (gaming), Trend Impact Analysis
Additionally, Porter (2005a) has proposed nine dimensions to categorise technology foresight and
related FTA content and process.
Table 2: Technology Foresight Typology
Issues
Dimension
Content
Normative
Technology
(Development)
Multiple
Technologies
Locus
Institution
Sector
Time
Horizon
Purpose
Short
(1-2 year)
Informational
Target Users
Few;
knowledgeable
Narrow mix,
closed process
Mid-range
(3-10 year)
Actionoriented
Diverse
Scope
Process
State Values
Extrapolative
Science
(Research)
Single Topic or
Technology
Motivation
Drivers
Participation
Study
Duration
Day(s)
Intermediate
Month(s)
Innovation
Wideranging
Planning
Nation/
Region
Long
(15+ years)
Contex
t
Global
Diverse
mix,
representati
ve process
Year(s)
With a slightly different focus, von Schomberg, Guimarães Pereira and Funtowicz (2005) have
proposed a set of criteria to assess the quality of knowledge produced in foresight activities. This is
obviously relevant for the assessment of the validity of such knowledge, since foresight increasingly
seeks to incorporate knowledge provided by non-experts with stakes in technology and its applications
and is increasingly confronted with lack of knowledge (or non-knowledge) and uncertain or contested
knowledge. Since decision-making frequently has to take place despite such uncertainties, we need
quality standards and assessment methods. Proposed criteria are highlighted in Table 3 and detailed in
the annex to the paper (von Schomberg et al., 2005).
While it is not possible to provide a standard recipe for successful FTA analyses, a great deal of
experience with such activities exists. In many cases we can state which methods have worked well
toward attaining which goals, given particular content emphases, with which processes involving
certain participants and clients. We seek to identify more general recommendations related to FTA
activities (“do’s” and “don’ts”).
Table 3: Technology Foresight Quality Criteria
Issues
Dimension
Information
Pedigree
Accuracy
Fitness for purpose
Relevance
Adaptabilit/Flexibliity
Transparency
Models documentation
Sources of
information
Arbitrariness –
scientific set-ups
Legitimacy
Intelligibility
Collegial consensus
Compliance with target
audience
Accessibility
Transparency
Communication of
uncertainties
Pedigree statement
Acknowledgement
of Input
Recognition
Statement
Applicability
Reliability
Quality of
Tools
Information
communicat
ed through
Networking
Information
communicat
ed from
networking
into the
foresight
exercise
Considerations
Correspondence of
information & issues:
- Adequacy
- Relevance
Access & Availability
Control
- Sources – Where?
- Sources – Method of
generation
- Sources – of generation
- Verification
- Colleague consensus
Adequacy/Applicability
Fitness for purpose
Comprehensiveness
Intelligibility
Confidence
- Extended peer
acceptance
- Legitimacy
In order to develop such guidelines for the selection of methods well-suited for the specific
circumstances of an FTA activity, an important step is to analyse existing experience through case
studies. We seek to pinpoint critical factors in matching goals, motivations and clients with methods
and other dimensions, such as approach and organisation of FTA processes.
This FTA seminar stream attempts to assess the validity of theoretically derived criteria to modify and
extend the schemes. It seeks to help develop guidelines for project managers proposing or designing
TFA activities.
Literature:
Porter, A.L. (2005a): Foresight in Perspective, Prospecta Peru 2005, Lima, Sep., 2005.
Porter, A.L. (2005b): Technology Foresight: Types and Methods, forthcoming.
Von Schomberg, R., Guimarães Pereir, Â., Funtowicz,S.(2005): "Deliberating Foresight-Knowledge for Policy
and Foresight - Knowledge Assessment". European Commission Working paper. Available at:
http://www.cordis.lu/foresight/working.htm
Technology Futures Analysis Methods Working Group (2004), [Alan L. Porter, W. Bradford Ashton, Guenter
Clare, Joseph F. Coates, Kerstin Cuhls, Scott W. Cunningham, Ken Ducatel, Patrick van der Duin, Luke
Georghiou, Ted Gordon, Hal Linstone, Vincent Marchau, Gilda Massari, Ian Miles, Mary Mogee, Ahti Salo,
Fabiana Scapolo, Ruud Smits, and Wil Thissen], ‘Technology Futures Analysis: Toward Integration of the
Field and New Methods’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, 287-303.
Transfo
rmation
/Encodi
ng