Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL FORESIGHT: LESSONS FROM
SCENARIO AND ROADMAPPING PROCESS ON INTELLIGENT AND
SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
Cristiano Cagnin
DG Joint Research Centre for Prospective and Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), Seville (Spain),
cristiano.cagnin@ec.europa.eu
Totti Könnölä
Impetu Solutions, Madrid (Spain), totti.konnola@impetusolutions.com
Summary
It is widely recognised that major societal challenges require coordinated efforts beyond regional
and national boundaries to be effective. This lay down an important challenge also for FTA
activities to be truly international. This paper addresses FTA and in particular foresight design
and management in the context of international agenda setting activities.
Geographical dispersion, organisational and cultural differences, and numerous participants, for
example, bring in novel aspects in foresight design and management on top of lessons learned
from earlier exercises around the world. Towards this end, we examine the available literature
on international foresight management and conceptualise design and managerial issues
particularly relevant in the international context. For instance, scalability of activities is a
precondition for ensuring wide and balanced participation of different stakeholders in due time.
Also responsiveness towards stakeholders' interests and offering equal opportunities for
contributing to the exercise are pertinent to meet the diverse expectations.
Ten principles for global foresight design and management are identified and the ways in which
these have been dealt with in practice are outlined. We describe and analyse a recent foresight
exercise that we designed and coordinated in the context of international coordination of
research, education and innovation on intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS). Lessons learned
reflecting the IMS project experience around the ten principles to be considered when designing
and undertaking an international foresight exercise are then outlined.
We elaborated a modular foresight architecture that allowed engagement of numerous
participants in different roles and with different kinds of contributions. Much of the joint work was
conducted using online tools including collaborative platforms like wikipedia, online surveys and
video/teleconferences combined with carefully prepared structured interviews and face-to-face
meetings. The meetings were dedicated to the crucial phases such as the scenario formulation
and the common definition of the vision for the roadmapping work, which created a sufficient
basis to continue refinement of the work in dedicated online spaces as well as an open wiki
platform.
The IMS2020 scenario and roadmapping process shed light on some challenges in organising
international foresight exercises. The scalable design was crucial for adapting to geographical
dispersion and numerous participants. Furthermore, the responsiveness to stakeholder needs
and interests in course of the exercise was crucial to keep the participants motivated and to
share the ownership of the outcomes. Building on this experience, we conclude that the online
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
working tools can offer major support for efficient and participatory management of foresight
when their use is integral part of the design of the whole exercise.
1 Introduction
Finding solutions to grand challenges such as climate change is a demand for all industries
around the globe. Lately, the need to address such a challenge together with diminishing natural
resources raise other challenges such as loss of biodiversity, increasing demand for food,
deepening in poverty and exclusion, energy and water scarcity and mass migration among
others (Boden et al., 2010); and has been the focus for major changes in manufacturing
processes worldwide.
In this context, it is widely recognised that major societal challenges require coordinated efforts
beyond regional and national boundaries to be effective. The European manufacturing industry,
in particular, is currently faced with higher demands for environmental friendly production and
increased ability to compete globally (Granly et al. 2010). Pasquettaz (2010) adds to these the
challenges of reducing costs while maintaining highest quality and process performance and to
keep up with increasing technical and environmental demands. Hence, developing technology
for more sustainable manufacturing offers the potential to face many of these challenges by
reducing waste, while adding value to products (Granly et al., 2010) and services.
How can manufacturing companies meet grand challenges? To Mani et al. (2010) sustainable
manufacturing broadly implies the development of innovative manufacturing sciences and
technologies that span the life cycle of products and services to minimise negative
environmental impacts, conserve energy and natural resources, are safe for employees,
communities and consumers, and are economically sound. Also, there is a need for new
strategies rooted on research and innovation (RI) and for a deep industrial transformation allow
manufacturing to remain competitive while meeting environmental and societal challenges.
These aspects of future of manufacturing were recently addressed in the Framework
Programme (FP)7 Project on ‘Intelligent Manufacturing Systems’ (IMS2020) conducted by an
international consortium of 15 core partners. The IMS2020 project aims to give guidance on
what future research is needed for the manufacturing industry to become more sustainable
(Saloma, 2010). This is done departing from the needs and views coming from industry and
linking these to the research, competences and curricula which should be developed in
collaboration between industry and both research and academic institutions to meet pressing
societal challenges.
Departing from a triple bottom line approach to sustainability (Elkinton, 1998) and considering
markets (economy) acting as a control (Taish et al., 2010) to the two other dimensions of
sustainability (i.e. environmental and social), Rolstadas (2010) outlines that co-investments
represent the constraints of process transformation such as energy consumption
(environmental) and of jobs and social acceptance (social) of RI. Within such a model, Rostaldas
(2010) claim that the IMS2020 identified research topics represent the new knowledge that may
lead to new products and processes in improving existing products and processes for a new
global industrial manufacturing.
To identify the above RI topics which bring the promise to support a shift in European
manufacturing in collaboration with players around the globe to a more sustainable model, the
IMS2020 project used a foresight approach.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
In this paper, we reflect our experience in designing and coordinating the international scenario
and roadmapping IMS2020 process in the context of international agenda setting activities.
Geographical dispersion, organisational and cultural differences, and numerous participants, for
example, bring in novel aspects in foresight design and management on top of lessons learned
from earlier exercises around the world.
We start our analysis by exploring recent efforts on designing and managing international
foresight exercises from which we derive and crystallise principles for international foresight.
Further on, we describe the context and main phases of the IMS2020 scenario and
roadmapping project followed by a discussion in light of the principles in integrating design,
implementation and management within global foresight.
The described case indicates that foresight holds a promise of better international coordination
and joint preparedness for future grand challenges. However, the complexity of international
exercises sets relevant design and managerial challenges such as scale, culture, timing and
institutional constrains that necessitate particular attention in order to meet the multiple
expectations of stakeholders and the client.
2 Global Foresight Design and Management
2.1 Design aspects
The first aspect to consider before starting any venture is to have clear from the outset what
impact is intended within the system under analysis and how this shall be reflected in other
interconnected systems (e.g. social, technological, economic, environmental, political, value,
cultural, etc). Parallel to such an understanding is the need to ensure that all those who are
responsible in making the necessary decisions for change are involved across the process at
well defined stages and will therefore feel ownership of its results.
To be able to identify what shall be expected from a foresight exercise it is important to know
what foresight can deliver to policy making. Six functions have been indentified (Da Costa et al.,
2008):






Informing policy: generating insights regarding the dynamics of change, future challenges
and options, along with new ideas, and transmitting them to policy makers as an input to
policy conceptualisation and design.
Facilitating policy implementation: enhancing the capacity for change within a given policy
field by building a common awareness of the current situation and future challenges, as well
as new networks and visions among stakeholders.
Embedding participation in policy making: facilitating the participation of civil society in the
policy making process, thus improving its transparency and legitimacy.
Supporting policy definition: jointly translating outcomes from the collective process into
specific options for policy definition and implementation.
Reconfiguring the policy system: in a way it becomes better prepared and apt to address
long-term challenges.
Symbolic function: indicating to the public that policy is based on rational information.
As important as knowing what type of support foresight can deliver to policy making is to know at
which stage(s) of the policy cycle one wants to have an impact. A foresight endeavour can assist
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
policy making (fig. 1) in its first three stages of agenda-setting, policy definition and
implementation.
Figure 1: Policy Cycle
Learning
Agendasetting
Evaluation
Policy
definition
Implementation
In the agenda-setting stage foresight can support by, for example, providing visions,
understanding of systemic and dynamic changes as well as of risks, opportunities and system
capabilities, stakeholders' views, among others. Similarly, at the stage of policy definition
foresight can provide with ideas, recommendations and policy options, outlining related pros and
cons as well as likely consequences to certain decisions.
At the first two stages of agenda-setting and policy definition foresight can lead to the
development of new networks or linkages, and the achievement of common ground, shared
perspectives and joint visions.
At the implementation phase foresight often assist with an enhanced responsiveness of the
system and new policy configurations, leading thus to change in attitudes towards the future
such as embedding long-term thinking in decision making processes, raising overall awareness
of challenges and opportunities, and the development of a foresight and learning culture.
Throughout the three above mentioned stages foresight can benefit the system by also bringing
legitimacy and transparency to the overall decision making process. Also, it is important to
highlight that foresight is increasingly moving from providing support mainly to the agendasetting phase into that of implementation.
It is critical to outline that this is not a linear model of policy making but rather a continual and
reflexive process where foresight can be used as a systemic instrument complementing
traditional steering approaches.
Finally, in order to enable a better communication process between the policy client and those
commissioned to carry out a foresight exercise or to enable policy makers to participate in the
design of the process themselves, a sketch (fig. 2) has been developed and has been
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
successfully used by JRC-IPTS to kick off discussions on which impacts should an exercise aim
for.
Figure 2: Foresight Impacts
Structured stakeholder
dialogue on the future
produces
changes
Insights about
the future
1
Strategic
intelligence as
a base for
better
decisions and
strategies
Relations with respect
to the future
Attitudes towards the
future
2
3
Changes in society for better policy implementation
4
Changes in policy process for better decision making
1
Informing policy making – decisions taken by key actors in the commissioning
body is more aware of longer-term developments and how these are liable to
interact with current policy decisions
2
Building networks – bringing together people from different settings involved
with shaping the future of a particular topic to collectively understand the
challenges and opportunities that they are liable to confront, and the strategies
and objectives that others might pursue
3
Developing capabilities & foresight culture – enabling people with a variety of
backgrounds to define and embark upon their own foresight activities and to
create their own foresight networks
4
Devising strategic visions – thus creating a shared sense of commitment to
these visions among foresight participants, and an agreed direction to follow
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
2.2 Designing an exercise in practice
It is often the case that an exercise is shaped together with the client, project partners and other
key stakeholders. Those involved in the discussions may not be acquainted with foresight and
concerned, for instance, in loosing decision-making power to stakeholders due to the bottom-up
aspects of the process.
It is paramount to share and overcome such concerns before proceeding in shaping an exercise.
As the term 'foresight' can be perceived differently by various stakeholders, JRC-IPTS has been
using in such discussions the more generic term of 'structured stakeholder dialogue on the
future' instead. In addition, after an initial debate on what impacts are intended at each stage of
the policy cycle and before engaging into in-depth design discussions, JRC-IPTS has been
using the stages of 'diagnosis', 'prognosis' and 'prescription' to start shaping an exercise (fig. 3).
Within each of these three stages the discussion is geared towards identifying guiding questions
(i.e. intended impacts and objectives), specific participants (i.e. type and level of stakeholders'
participation), and specific combination of methods to structure the dialogue, all linked to the
particular context in place and the intended impacts.
Figure 3: Basic Foresight Process
Structured Dialogue on the Future
Diagnosis
Understanding where
we are…
Prognosis
Exploring what could
happen…
Prescription
Debating what we
would like to happen…
Deciding what should
be done…
Each type of dialogue requires:




Specific objectives (guiding questions)
Specific participants (type and level of participation)
Specific methods structuring the debate
Need to tailor the approach to context, intended impacts and objectives of each phase
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
The decision of intended impacts and objectives are linked to the actual possibility of acting
upon results or implementing the required changes resulting from the process. In the same line,
the decision of participants and their level of involvement as well as methods used to structure
the dialogue are dependent on issues such as culture of decision making and political structures
in place. However, often exercises have been shaped in a way that at particular stages wide
participation (aiming at including overall citizens in the debate) is sought for, especially in the
beginning of the exercise (if not throughout the process) to collect diversity of views on the issue
as well as solutions to the challenge at hand.
It is also important to highlight that while designing the stages of 'diagnosis', 'prognosis' and
'prescription' of a foresight exercise it is often the case that activities from different stages can
run in parallel in the implantation phase. This is important to enable a reduction in the resources
needed (time and people). However, it also adds to the complexity of designing an exercise as
often the main results from one stage are key inputs to the following stage.
2.3 Principles for global foresight design and management
The integration in the design phase of the strategic and operational aspects of an exercise
(Alsan and Oner, 2004) via clarity, unity, integrity and coherence (Alsan and Oner, 2003) and
with an understanding of the system at hand (Saritas, 2006) and the diversity of stakeholders
which should be involved across the exercise is critical to shed some light in ways of dealing with
uncertainties and discontinuities through foresight and enable one to become innovative.
According to Saritas and Oner (2004), a systemic approach is paramount from the design stage of
an undertaking for both its successful implementation and that of its outcomes due to the
multidimensional characteristics and complex nature of foresight. Hence, the implementation phase
becomes often the most challenging stage of a foresight exercise. Managing diversity and the
interaction of different systems and their affecting factors adds to such complexity. This is the reason
why there is a need to enable the creation of spaces for mutual learning and appreciation as well
as to enable an understanding of how the system could evolve in the future in a coherent, clear
and systemic way.
To secure therefore proper implementation and management, it is important to structure in the
design phase aspects such as the ways in which the communication and interactions between
relations (e.g. participants, stakeholders, policy and decision makers, etc) will take place, and
consensus will be achieved building upon shared understanding and collective and creative
knowledge. Salo et al. (2004) agree when they affirm that one of the defining features of
foresight is the creative generation of synthetic knowledge whereby future-oriented expectations
are jointly produced, combined and assimilated through various inputs and critical reflection or,
in other words, mutual learning. At the same time, they claim, the process must be designed
from the outset to cope during the implementation phase with shifting objectives and stakeholder
expectations; or what they call responsiveness of the process. This also means that relevant
stakeholders should be involved into some form or dialogue (methods vary) across different
stages of the process to share their views of achievements and their meaning to the following
stages of an exercise (Könnölä et al., 2009).
System responsiveness and adaptation are closed intertwined elements necessary for a
successful foresight undertaking. Weber (2006) coined the concept of adaptive foresight that
claims that foresight needs to go beyond the level of a collective process and be brought down
to the level of individual actors’ strategies, which means a need to combine open participation
with closed decision making processes. Moreover, there is also the need to adapt to changes in
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
the environment and the ability to keep options open until these can be used effectively (or have
become irrelevant). The basic idea is to add a process cycle to complement foresight with a
phase of 'strategic counselling' where the results are translated into policy strategies, thus
enabling results to be adapted to different policy making bodies or organisations (Da Costa,
2008).
Therefore, there is a clear need to ensure expectations are managed in line with the objectives
of the exercise and the results it aims to attain, which should be adaptive both in terms of
process (combine open and collective with closed and expert-driven stages) and results
(different options for different audiences, and recommendations which are adaptive to change).
Moreover, Könnölä et al. (2007) claim that diversity1 is the key element to enable the fostering of
innovation capabilities through the creation of viable alternatives (scenarios) that escape the
existing dominant designs and techno-institutional lock ins, thus allowing the system to become
more adaptable. In this context, the authors argue that to enable a systematic analysis of how
different (weak) signals refer to one another or what they mean to different stakeholders it is
necessary to adopt a more focused characterisation by soliciting signals that convey ideas about
future innovations aligned with the systemic and action-oriented nature of innovation processes
instead of less focused future-oriented statements.
To embed such a need within a foresight project it becomes necessary to build upon both formal
and informal networks, particularly those contacts cultivated over the years (Reger, 2001), as
well as information and knowledge in the information collection and knowledge generation
phases by soliciting ideas like those pointed out by Könnölä et al. (2007). Salo et al. (2004)
agrees when he affirms that the establishment of an effective communication process with all
stakeholders involved, including those in the phase of information collection, is paramount to yield
both ownership and use of results.
In this context, it is critical to manage diversity and its interactions as well as communication and
behavioural aspects in a way which is clear and coherent from the beginning to all involved
along the process, making sure that these aspects are integral to both the strategic and
operational aspects of the exercise, and is applied equally by all partners in an unified manner.
Such a need is reinforced by Costanzo (2004), who claims that nimbleness, visible and structured
processes, and extensive communication glued together by a focused management team form an
important core capability that impacts in the ability of organisations to undertake strategic foresight
and thus continuously innovate.
To enable therefore innovation to take place across a given system through the successful
implementation and management of an international foresight exercise it is critical to shape a
common path to follow (building on a collective vision) including the views and actions of
involved individuals and their institutions, as well as resources which should be developed and
mobilised, to ensure ownership and that action is taken upon results. Getler and Wolfe (2004)
corroborates by outlining that foresight processes should be seen as socially organised learning
processes which involve learning by individuals, by organisations and by institutions, and that critical
in this regard is the ability to shape a collective vision building upon individual views and actions and
how these interact with larger institutional structures.
Building on the literature review we elaborate ten principles that may support the design and
management of global foresight exercise, which consist of the following:
1
In reference to existing and emerging innovation capabilities based on technological (social and technological
artifacts and infrastructures) options, visions and value networks.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
3 Case: Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) 2020
IMS2020 is an FP7 project funded by the NMP division of the European Commission within the
IMS Framework, conducted by an international consortium of 15 core partners and a large group
of supportive members from Europe, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and the USA. The project
engaged participants from these and many other countries.
The main objective was the creation of five research roadmaps towards IMS by the year 2020
and beyond. The roadmaps (Könnölä, 2007) highlight the main milestones of innovation
activities (i.e. research and development, management and policy actions) which are needed to
achieve a desired vision. Each roadmap focused on one of 5 key areas (KATs): sustainable
manufacturing, products and services; energy efficient manufacturing; key technologies;
standardisation; and innovation, competence development and education. The aim was to
identify relevant manufacturing research topics and the supporting actions which are needed to
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
shape the future of intelligent manufacturing through international cooperation in each of these
areas. Four scenario snapshots of possible states of the future by 2025 were developed. Based
on these the IMS2020 Vision was defined. The final five roadmaps were designed towards such
Vision.
Apart from the five roadmaps, the IMS2020 project strives to identify new schemes and
frameworks to support manufacturing systems research, to stimulate small and medium
enterprises participation in international cooperative research and development projects, to
establish international and inter-regional communities in the five key areas under consideration,
and to prepare the ground for new IMS proposals and manufacturing projects.
IMS2020 takes a holistic and sustainable approach to manufacturing, including design
manufacturing, consumption and disposal of products and services. One of the main strengths
of the project lies in the amount of support and industry involvement it has achieved as well as
the political momentum and support it has generated. It has developed a fruitful collaboration
between public bodies, policy makers and companies.
3.1 Methodology
In the kick-off meeting of the project most of the debate centred on the methodological aspects
and the overall design of the process. Initially the JRC-IPTS proposed an approach which would
combine wide participation through online surveys in combination with workshops with selected
industry experts and the use of online tools to engage project partners and the supporting
roadmapping group in well defined stages as well as to ensure communication and interaction
throughout the project. Also, the idea was to involve the EU Commission (client) to debate all
milestone results to ensure ownership and commitment, as well as mutual learning so that the
process could adapt to needs along the way. In this way we planned to link the strategic goals of
the Commission with the operational aspects of the process, as well as to ensure that a
consensus among project partners and between these and the Commission would emerge
along the way.
However, many of the project partners outlined that the best way to engage with their informal
network of contacts would be through other methods, such as interviews and smaller workshops
which would function as a dedicated space for mutual learning rather than collecting information
from industry representatives. Figure 4 outlines the framework used in the initial discussions to
shape decisions.
Therefore, the methodology used for the IMS2020 roadmapping process was designed to
ensure the highest relevance to inputs coming from the industrial community as well as to
ensure the international relevance of results. Moreover, the work took important consideration of
previous work both at European and International levels. Figure 5 shows the overall IMS2020
process.
We elaborated a modular foresight architecture that allowed engagement of numerous
participants in different roles and with different kinds of contributions. Much of the joint work was
conducted using online tools including collaborative platforms like wikipedia, online surveys and
video/teleconferences combined with carefully prepared structured interviews and face-to-face
meetings. The meetings were dedicated to the crucial phases such as the scenario formulation
and the common definition of the vision for the roadmapping work, which created a sufficient
basis to continue refinement of the work in dedicated online spaces as well as an open wiki
platform, thus combining open and collective with closed and expert-driven stages.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Figure 4: IMS2020 Initial Framework
Diagnosis
Understanding where
we are…
Prognosis
Exploring what could
happen…
Prescription
Debating what we
would like to happen…
Deciding what should
be done…




What are the main
drivers and variables
relevant for IMS?
What has already been
developed in previous
work looking at the
future of manufacturing
in the EU and beyond,
and how does it relate to
the current work?
Experts in and outside
the region, and project
partners
Desk research and
interviews




What do key
stakeholders believe is
key to achieve IMS by
2020?
How could world
manufacturing evolve in
the future and what
would be the implications
in terms of RI needed for
the IMS region?
Industry and research
Online survey,
workshops and
structured interviews with
business stakeholders
plus scenario workshops
and group work






How should the region
position itself depending
on the ways in which
world manufacturing
might evolve?
How to attain the desired
vision being adaptive to
change?
What are the RI
implications for each
KAT in achieving the
defined IMS vision?
Industry, research and
policy
Vision building and
roadmap workshops
Wiki platform
It is important to highlight that the collaborative tools used in development of the roadmap work
was able to engage hundreds of participants, including the roadmapping support group that is a
growing community supporting closely the project across its lifespan and that counts with over
350 international participants from 150 mainly industrial organisations.
The background work involved the mapping and analysis of i) scientific literature and of ii) the
main areas covered by twenty worldwide existing roadmaps and thirteen ongoing research
projects. Moreover, an online survey identified from 261 experts around the globe a variety of
innovation ideas about future innovations linked to one or more of the five KATs under
consideration and to (social, political, industrial, technological, and other) changes that could
have an influence in the realisation of the idea. The results from the above initiatives were
complemented with the outcomes from two brainstorming workshops and 106 interviews with
industry representatives, also asking for innovation ideas for IMS and required changes to have
these realised. All these activities produced a total of 754 research issues to be further explored
and refined.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Figure 5: IMS2020 Overall Process
A more in-depth analysis of the variables used to build scenarios/roadmaps and the research
topics within the analysed roadmaps were undertaken for all five KATs. The results were the
basis for the selection of the variables used to develop the scenarios within the IMS2020 project.
Moreover, the online questionnaire and interviews with key industry actors took into account
those research topics already mapped so that new topics could be identified.
The scenario work was coordinated by JRC-IPTS, who devised the approach and ensured the
process would run as smoothly as possible. Project partners were engaged throughout this
activity with support from JRC-IPTS. The methodology employed consists of nine main phases:
1. Support to the mapping activity to help identify and refine KAT dimensions, but most
importantly to scan dimensions used in previous scenario and roadmapping projects;
2. Linking the findings of previous projects and research with the results of mapping, interviews
and first online survey results to select the main impact dimensions which influence all KAT
dimensions to be used in the construction of the scenario snapshots;
3. Define the main features and their possible behaviour related to the selected impact
dimensions;
4. Devise a framework based on the main impact dimensions which would be used to select
the snapshots to be developed;
5. Position the scenario snapshots within the defined framework;
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
6. Develop the selected snapshots highlighting how their main features interact within each
possible state of the future by 20252. This entailed:
i)
The definition of the main characteristics or behaviour of each snapshot feature;
ii) The development of a storyline explaining the interactions between these features;
7. For each snapshot feature indentify both the desirability and likelihood of having such
behaviour in 2020;
8. Discuss the above findings in a vision building workshop to define the main characteristics or
behaviours that should constitute the IMS2020 vision;
9. Circulate both the developed snapshots and the IMS2020 vision to all project partners and
the roadmap support group for final refinements and to secure it encompasses all IMS
regions.
It is important to highlight that once the main features of each impact dimension affecting all five
KATs and the behavioural extremes in which these could fall in had been identified, JRC-IPTS
brought these to be discussed and refined with all project partners during a workshop. In this
workshop, four main impact dimensions influencing all five KATs were selected and were the
basis to develop a framework that was used to position the scenarios snapshots to be further
developed, according to Figure 6.
Figure 6: IMS2020 Scenarios
JRC-IPTS coordinated the whole work and supported four groups involving all project partners in
developing the four snapshots. During a period of a month and a half a number of online tools
2
The timeframe 2025 was selected both to break from current mindsets and to allow partners to think freely without
trying to connect these possible states of the future with the desired IMS2020 vision, which would be developed a
step further.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
were used so that JRC-IPTS could support each of the four groups responsible for developing
one scenario snapshot. Tools included MS groove for sharing and updating files and documents,
email, virtual room for videoconference and joint work, among others.
After the snapshots were developed within each of the four groups they were circulated to all
project partners and IMS regions for refinements and to ensure that these would take into
consideration not only an European perspective, but ratter an international one.
At a second stage and after approval of the defined scenario snapshots by all project partners
and IMS regions, including the roadmapping support group, project partners had to assess all
features within each snapshot scenario on the likelihood and desirability of these becoming
reality by 2020. A Likert scale of 1 to 3 was used for this exercise, 1 being not desirable or not
likely, and 3 being desirable or likely to happen by 2020. The results of this exercise were then
used as an input for the development of the IMS2020 Vision during a vision building workshop,
and special attention was given in the discussion to those features which were desired
(desirability = 3) and somehow likely to happen by 2020 (likelihood > 2).
Based on the results of the vision building workshop a first draft of the IMS2020 Vision was
developed by JRC-IPTS and circulated for refinements and to ensure it would capture the views
from all project partners and IMS regions.
The final IMS2020 Vision comprise a set of around eighty research topics which has been
judged to be instrumental for the realisation of the Vision, according to Figure 7. These topics
have been shared and fine-tuned with the input of experts around the world, including the
roadmapping support group, through an online wiki that had over 2500 visits. Finally, the
research topics were prioritised in terms of i) a timeline between 2010 and 2020, ii) interdependencies between research topics (those which would depend on other research topics),
and iii) interest of different IMS regions to participate into collaborative research projects per
research topic. The latter took place through a second online survey that counted with 359
participants.
3.2 Results
The roadmaps have been adapted for use by the EU Commission. These depart from the
implementation of the identified research topics and supporting actions between 2011 and 2013,
and show the possible impacts or benefits that these could deliver in a timeline towards the
IMS2020 Vision. These were shaped around: (i) research topics which act as 'bricks' with short
term implementation needed (starting in 1-3 years and to be concluded in 3-7 years); and (ii)
actions that are of mid-term implementation (7-10 years), with a wider focus and linked to the
research topics, but equally important in attaining the IMS2020 Vision.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Figure 7: IMS2020 Roadmaps
The IMS2020 Vision is based on inputs from the mapping activity, one online survey, industrial
workshops, and interviews with industry representatives. The IMS2020 Vision (Table 1) can be
summarised into three main statements (Cagnin, 2009):
1. Rapid and adaptive user-centred manufacturing, which leads to customised and 'eternal' life
cycle solutions.
2. Highly flexible and self-organising value chains, which enable different ways of organising
production systems, including infrastructures, and which reduce the time between engaging
with end users and delivering a solution.
3. Sustainable manufacturing possible due to cultural change of individuals and corporations
supported by the enforcement of rules and a regulatory framework co-designed between
governments, industries and societies.
With regards to the final roadmaps, these have been debated and refined with the Commission,
both the client of the project the one who shall act upon its results by developing and mobilising
the necessary resources. In the sustainable manufacturing, products and services KAT, twenty
seven research topics clustered around five main areas for research actions were indentified.
These areas are: technologies for sustainability, scarce resources management, sustainable
lifecycle of products and production systems, sustainable product and production, and
sustainable businesses. The twenty seven proposed research topics range from predictive
maintenance and sustainable packaging to quality embedded manufacturing, which looks at how
machines embedded with smart devices can be wirelessly networked under intelligent control
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
systems to enable real-time and remote data gathering and monitoring, thus providing a new
environment for enhancing quality management in manufacturing.
In the energy efficient manufacturing KAT, the project focused on how to reduce the use of
scarce resources and minimise firm's carbon footprint by considering innovative methods and
technologies. Here the roadmap was developed around four main cluster areas for research and
action: energy sources for factories, efficient production processes, energy utilisation in
collaborative frameworks, and management and control of energy consumption. Within these,
eleven research topics have been proposed, ranging from energy autonomous factory to product
tags for holistic value chain improvements.
The key technologies KAT is looking at model-based enterprises, nanotechnology, smart
materials and robotics, which are all expected to make a big impact in the next generation of
manufacturing. In line with this, the roadmap was developed around four main cluster areas for
research and action: flexible manufacturing systems, cost-saving manufacturing systems,
energy-saving manufacturing systems, and key technologies embedded in manufactured
products. Within these, twenty three research topics were proposed, raging from modular
assembly/disassembly of production systems to knowledge embedded products.
Standardisation is critical to the successful uptake of efficient interoperable solutions in modern
and global firms. More than one thousand standards were assessed in the project to identify
existing gaps so that guidelines could be developed for policy makers. The research topics
within the KAT standardisation were therefore embedded in the three previous KATs for each
identified research topic. For the sustainable manufacturing, products and services KAT, five
standard 'needs' have been outlined and placed around the selected twenty seven research
topics. For both the energy efficient manufacturing KAT and the key technologies KAT, four
standard 'needs' were identified for each. Standard 'needs' were grouped in interface,
measurement, process, safety, product and component, or material standards.
In the same line, in the innovation, competence KAT the research topics were embedded in the
three previous KATs with a focus on preparing manufacturing engineers for the identified future
industry needs. This means a shift from a pure technological viewpoint to one that integrates
technology, business and management while also tacking sustainability into account. Overall
nine research topics – ranging from teaching factories to accelerated learning – were identified
and embedded in the research topics of the first three KATs: sustainable manufacturing,
products and services; energy efficient manufacturing; and key technologies.
Both the devised vision and related roadmaps, which include the milestones of innovation
activities identified, have been open for wide consultation in the IMS region and beyond through
a wiki platform. Final results have been presented in the form of roadmaps between today and
end of FP8 to enable the EU Commission to identify and select research priorities to be funded
in collaboration between today and 2020. Results are currently being used to shape further FP7
calls and in defining FP8.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Table 1: Final IMS2020 Vision
Policies &
regulations
Sustainability policies and related regulations, which comprise an alignment between different policy realms,
are globally aligned and enforced by supra-national institutions, which equally represent all world nations and
support a shift towards participatory governance and decision making approaches.
Decision making
Multi-layer bottom-up and long term decision making processes are established both by governments and
industries, both with each other and with overall societies. This is the backbone for greater inclusion, reduction
of development gap between rich and poor nations, and sustainable manufacturing.
Collaboration
Collaboration between governments, industries and societies, enabled by IT (Web 2.0) and accessible
education to all, which allows for citizens' awareness raising and engagement in decision making processes
and co-design of global regulatory framework that is enforced by supra-national institutions.
Partnerships
Partnerships and a balance between cooperation and competition are the soft rules for all relationships,
allowing value chain networks to self-organise and thus firms to effectively and transparently cooperate and to
trust partners, while maintaining competitive advantages related to core competences.
Values &
behaviours
Shift in societies' values and behaviours from current individual consumers towards collective and
sustainability values, with life and relationships being more valued than the single need, which is only met
when in alignment with global values such as human rights.
Life cycle &
performance
Solutions (products + services + processes) designed and managed across their life cycles based on the
'eternal' life cycle approach, which means that they generate no waste and that every material or resource is
continuously transformed, and is geared by renewable and alternative energy sources.
Technology
Value chains are driven by sustainability and new technologies such as nuclear fusion, hydrogen, new
production technologies, etc., all of which allow for information sharing and tractability, reuse / recycle through
assembly and disassembly, and sustainable end of life (i.e. biodegradable or edible materials).
Localisation
Solutions are not only globally localised (i.e. communities) but customised to individuals. These are co-created
with end users, who participate in the process from the identification of specific needs towards the design,
production, delivery and disposal (reuse or recycle) of solutions and materials used.
Markets
Global markets are regulated through common rules enforced by supra-national organisations. Firms
organised through global value chains which are highly flexible and able to self-organise. Value chain
networks are created as partnerships which are built according to specific needs, solutions and actors.
Standardisation
& regulation
Regulations are globally co-designed and enforced by supra-national organisations. Standards shifts towards
sustainable solutions and processes of user engagement, which include technologies which speed the
process of identifying a particular need and the further rapid manufacturing of solutions.
Knowledge
Knowledge is jointly generated, automatically distributed and exploited in cooperation. It is part of a collective
intelligent network (i.e. global brain) with different IPR systems, which allow tacit knowledge to become
collective and explicit.
Education
Education is pervasive to all human activities; it takes place at any time and anywhere. It is provided by a
multitude of actors, in alignment with institutions and in collaboration with industry and governments.
Curricula
Curricula is personalised since individuals learn through experience, which mean that they actively participate
in the learning process.
Competence and
skills
New skills and competences are deployed providing individuals and institutions with the necessary capabilities
to anticipate and adapt to changes and think long term (i.e. foresight).
Learning
Learning takes place at any time and anywhere and is geared towards individual experience rather than
traditional learning methods.
Energy
Smart grids for energy co-generation at the point of consumption, and distribution involving all stakeholders
(i.e. industry, governments and citizens at home and in the office), which allow for energy efficiency close to
100%. Alternative and renewable sources of energy drive manufacturing.
Natural
resources &
materials
Natural resources are used in an intelligent way with zero waste and zero losses, allowing for conservation
and renew (in case of renewable resources). Ownership of resources and sustainable use internationally
recognised and globally ensured, supporting changes in geopolitics.
Environmental
footprint
Environmental footprint is positive. New geopolitics support reduction in development gap between rich and
poor. All countries have equal access to wealth and education as well as responsibility towards the collective.
Business value becomes a balance of economic, social, environmental, spatial, cultural and political capital,
which is enabled through stakeholder engagement (co-creation and open innovation).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
4 Revisiting the principles for global foresight
The IMS2020 scenario and roadmapping process shed light on some challenges in organising
global foresight exercises. Table 2 summarises some of the lessons learned reflecting these
around the important principles to be considered when designing and undertaking an
international foresight exercise.
Lessons vary therefore from using the proposed framework (Figure 3) to link strategic objectives
with the operational activities to be performed, the diversity of stakeholders to be engaged, the
communication channels to be used, and methods to be employed. Also, the discussion of
impacts intended (Figure 2) when defining each operational step and guiding questions of the
overall process has been very useful to focus the discussion and reduce deviation into all sort of
results which could be achieved within an exercise of this size.
Undertaking a systemic understanding of the system at the initial phase and combining open
and collective with closed and expert-driven stages was critical to set a robust process in which
participants' knew at each phase what was expected and how milestone results would feed the
following phases. The modular foresight architecture employed allowed engagement of
numerous participants in different roles and with different kinds of contributions and enabled the
process and results to be adaptable to changes such as evolving client needs (from a list of
priorities for research collaboration into feeding its framework programme) as well as the
scenario and roadmaping work which had to adapt to closely involve partners during a period of
almost two months. Such flexibility was critical to build ownership of results and to enable that all
project partners had the same understanding of how different pieces fit together into the whole
structure of the project.
Table 2: lessons learned from IMS2020
Principles for
Global Foresight
Actions Taken
Lessons Learned
Examine systemic
properties in the
context in which the
exercise takes place
in order to identify
key objectives,
stakeholders and the
scope of the
exercise.
Understanding of current situation by
mapping scientific literature and existing
worldwide roadmaps on manufacturing,
together with partners experience shared
in workshops and weekly Skype calls, and
workshops with industry. This was the
basis to select variables to jointly develop
scenarios, which also used inputs from
online and wiki open consultations, to
understand likely ways in which world
manufacturing system can evolve in the
future.
The combination of open and collective with
closed and expert-driven stages enabled partners
and main collaborators (i.e. EU Commission and
roadmapping group) to share a common
understanding of the system under analysis and
likely ways it can evolve, positioning the project's
objectives within this mindset.
Prepare to align
strategic objectives
with operational
design and
managerial aspects
all through the
exercise to
accommodate
diverse stakeholder
expectations.
Meetings with the client (EU Commission)
to i) design the strategy, ii) debate
milestone results, and iii) mutual learning.
The framework used in the initial discussions was
critical to link the strategic objectives of the
project to the operational activities to be
undertaken. The partner meetings were
paramount to adapt the process to evolving client
needs, and in order to identify participants for the
more closed and expert-driven stages of the
project
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Define alternative
ways to bring about
diversity of
participants and their
respective
viewpoints creating
spaces that allow
stocktaking on
diversity and
elaborating joint
agendas.
Definition of spaces for engaging
partners, the client (EU Commission),
partners' industry contacts, the
roadmapping group, and wider audiences
within the kick-off meeting. This was done
using the JRC-IPTS framework for
shaping the exercise's design, and
building upon a dialogue among project
partners
Again, the framework used in the initial
discussions was critical to shape the design of the
exercise and combine different ways of engaging
different audiences across both formal and
informal partner networks. The use of online tools
was paramount to enable partners to collaborate
across the project within dedicated spaces as well
as to engage wider participation in the open
stages of the project. Moreover, these tools
offered major support for efficient and
participatory management of the exercise since
their use was integral part of its design
Ensure multiple
communication
channels to enable
knowledge to flow,
interactions to take
place and workable
agreements to be
achieved.
A range of channels were used in this
regard: online video conferences and
weekly Skype calls with project partners,
face-to-face meetings between partners
and with industry experts and the EU
Commission, and interviews. To interact
with wider audiences' two online surveys
and a wiki platform were used. All material
produced was shared online through
Groove, an online platform used by all
partners
Weekly Skype calls were crucial to take stock of
performed activities and to define who would be
responsible for taking action based on a common
understanding of what still had to be done and the
direction to follow. The meetings were dedicated
to the crucial phases such as the scenario
formulation and the common definition of the
vision for the roadmapping work, which created a
sufficient basis to continue refinement of the work
in dedicated online spaces and to reach
consensus among partners and collaborators
Build upon both
formal and informal
networks to combine
existing knowledge
in novel ways, allow
creativity to take
place and embed the
exercise in the
system it is part of.
During the kick-off meeting partners
outlined that the best way to engage with
their informal network of contacts would
be through other methods than those
used for formal networks like online
surveys combined with workshops.
Hence, the decision was to also include
methods like interviews and smaller
workshops which would function as a
dedicated space for mutual learning rather
than collecting information from formal
and informal networks of industry
representatives
Creativity was fostered in both open/ collective
and close/expert-driven stages of the project.
Workshops with industry representatives were
shaped in a way that spaces for mutual learning
rather than the simple exchange of information
would take place. These combined presentations,
roundtable discussions and small groups'
debates, always bringing in different views on the
same topic. In the open and collective stages, the
results of online surveys, workshop discussions,
interviews and partner meetings were used as
input for a wiki platform. As a result a number of
research topics were re-shaped and combined in
novel ways due to inputs and discussions
enabled through such a tool and that would have
been difficult to capture otherwise.
Solicit ideas also
about future
innovations aligned
with the systemic
and action-oriented
nature of innovation
processes beyond
less focused futureoriented statements.
The first online survey asked exactly for
this kind of information from industry and
research networks. It identified from 261
experts around the globe a variety of
innovation ideas about future innovations
linked to one or more of the five KATs
under consideration and to (social,
political, industrial, technological, and
other) changes that could have an
influence in the realisation of the idea
In the design of the first online survey there was a
need for explanation and to convince partners of
the benefits in elaborating the survey questions in
this way. Only after a debate on the nature of
innovations and on how to solicit creative future
ideas that partners achieved a common
understanding and therefore a consensus on the
questionnaire used for the first online survey.
Debates took place in the kick-off meeting and
weekly Skype calls with all partners, as well as a
meeting were JRC-IPTS and those responsible in
running the survey sat together to jointly design
the questionnaire
Manage diversity
and its interactions
as well as
communication and
behavioural aspects
in a way which is
In the kick-off meeting partners decided
the diversity needed to be engaged
across the project and the stages in which
each group of stakeholders would be
involved in order to reach the strategic
objectives, as well as the methods for
Once again the framework used in the initial
discussions was critical to link the strategic
objectives of the project to the operational
activities to be taken and the stakeholders to be
involved at each phase. Although the diversity
needed and the communication procedures to put
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
clear to all and in
alignment to
strategic and
operational
decisions.
engagement and both internal and
external communication channels
in place were clear to all from the outset,
managing interactions, especially between
partners, required much more: at stages such as
the scenario building process there were times
we had to return to previous discussions, clarify
decisions already taken and, most importantly,
show how elements fit together within a bigger
picture in order to attain the results and impacts
intended
Ensure expectations
are managed in line
with the objectives of
the exercise and the
results it aims to
attain.
The only stage which was critical during
the project was in the scenario and vision
building processes. This happened due to
the fact that none of the partners beyond
JRC-IPTS was acquainted with foresight
and the alternative processes for building
scenarios, joint visions and roadmaps. In
order to properly manage this JRC-IPTS
had to give a background explanation of
such processes and shape the exercise in
a way all partners would be involved and
share ownership of results
As mentioned, the scenario and vision building
process required lots of behaviour and
expectation management. In the fist scenario
building workshop a discussion of how scenarios
could be deployed and the variables to be
selected had to take place. Rather than having
partners developing scenarios as planned, the
first workshop had to be downscaled and devoted
to the joint selection of variables to be used and
the snapshots to be developed within a
framework which was jointly constructed. In fact,
16 possible snapshots were briefly discussed so
that partners would feel comfortable with those
selected to be further developed. Since there was
only one extra workshop planned for the scenario
work, JRC-IPTS proposed a different approach
than the one decided at the kick-off meeting: each
selected snapshot would be developed by
different teams with support from IPTS, later
these would be shared among partners, and
finally among collaborators. The approach worked
very well and enabled partners to feel more
security on the work being done and its results. It
also enabled the project to be kept within the
planned timetable. After all developed scenarios
were approved the second planned workshop
was devoted to develop a common vision. Here,
although JRC-IPTS was facilitating and giving
direction to the discussions, it asked project
partners to rotate in chairing and steering the
discussions. Again this worked very well and
partners felt very motivated during the two days
discussions, which was critical to build ownership
of results
Strive to design and
reach impacts which
are adaptive both in
terms of process and
results.
During the kick-off meeting the JRC-IPTS
framework was used to present different
alternatives to achieve the intended
impacts, as well as how results could be
presented to different audiences (policy,
industry and research)
The combination of open and collective (online
surveys, wiki) with closed and expert-driven
stages (interviews, workshops, meetings) enabled
flexibility in the overall process, such as the one
above mentioned for developing scenarios and a
shared vision. As for results, these have been
adapted for use by the EU Commission and thus
feed the framework programme 7 and what shall
substitute the framework programme 8. At the
same time, the way in which the scenarios, the
shared vision and the final roadmaps were
presented enabled its use by research (results
have been presented in a number of conferences)
and industry, who was involved in all stages of
the exercise
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Shape a common
path to follow
outlining resources
which should be
developed and
mobilised both
individually and
collectively.
The roadmaps were developed towards a
shared vision of IMS2020. These present
the research topics and supporting
actions to be deployed in time and
through collaboration in the IMS region
and beyond to attain the defined vision
Roadmaps have been developed for the EU
Commission and the resources it would need to
mobilise in the coming years to enable the
IMS2020 Vision to become a reality, and thus the
EU manufacturing systems to flourish sustainably.
However, as research topics were defined based
on collaboration needs in the IMS region, it would
be a natural activity to move a step further in
order to outline what resources would need to be
mobilised and developed per IMS involved
country as well as jointly: this would be an
interesting question for a research or another
project
In this regard, the use of various online tools (video and teleconferences, and Groove) was
paramount to structure internal communication channels and enable knowledge to flow and be
combined in novel ways. The latter was strengthened by engaging wider stakeholders via online
surveys and a wiki platform.
The development of tools such as questionnaires and, most importantly, the scenario and
roadmap work were the phases which required closer management of expectations. Since most
partners were new to foresight and to processes of developing scenarios and roadmaps, lots of
background explanation had to be given showing how things fit together. However, the most
critical part of this process was to closely involve all partners in the development of scenarios by
enabling them to steer the process, and working only as a facilitator who would intervene from
time to time to support partners to find different solutions to emerging challenges as questions
and doubts would arise. By doing so, partners felt strong motivation and ownership, which were
paramount to achieve at five roadmaps that are closely interconnected and show the research
and innovation topics and supporting actions needed to achieve at a shared vision of intelligent
manufacturing systems.
5 Conclusions
The IMS2020 scenario and roadmapping process shed light on future global collaborative
research and innovation needed for the sustainability of manufacturing industry and highlights
some of the challenges in organising global foresight exercises. For instance, the scalable
design was crucial for adapting to geographical dispersion and numerous participants. Also, the
responsiveness to stakeholder needs and interests in course of the exercise was crucial to keep
the participants motivated and to share the ownership of the outcomes.
The identification of ten principles for global foresight design and management and the ways in
which these have been dealt with in practice show that there are different ways to addressing
each of the principles: this can be done either in isolation (one principle at a time) or collectively.
Whatever the chosen approach, however, it may be beneficial to have all these principles
somehow embedded in the design of a foresight exercise for its successful implementation as
well as to ensure ownership and that action is taken upon results.
The results of the IMS2020 project has been used for instance in the further shaping FP7 and
design what shall substitute FP8, but it may far more relevant how the whole process created
systemic understanding and common visions among the stakeholders taking part in the exercise
and thus generating a momentum shaping globally the intelligent manufacturing industry of the
future. Building on this experience, we conclude that online working tools offer major support for
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
efficient and participatory management of global foresight when their use is integral part of the
design of the whole exercise – a finding that may deserve further research in the field.
6 References
Alsan, A. and Oner, M. A. (2003). An integrated view of foresight: integrated foresight
management model. Foresight 5(2), 33-45.
Alsan, A. and Oner, M. A. (2004). Comparison of national foresight studies by integrated
foresight management model. Futures 36, 889-902.
Cagnin, C. (2009). Scenarios Snapshots and IMS2020 Vision. Deliverable D2.2. of IMS2020
Project Number 233469, http://www.ims2020.net.
Costanzo, L. A. (2004). Strategic foresight in a high-speed environment. Futures 36, 219-235.
Da Costa, O.; Warnke, P.; Cagnin, C. & Scapolo, F. (2008): Foresight’s Impact on PolicyMaking: Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual Learning Process. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20, (3).
Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, New
Society Publishers.
Gertler, M. S. and Wolfe, D. A. (2004). Local social knowledge management: Community actors,
institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises. Futures 36, 45-65.
Granly, B. Welo, T. and Storen, S. (2010). Adaptive processing: a knowledge-based approach
for achieving sustainability. Proceedings from the IMS2020 Summer School o Sustainable
Manufacturing, 26-28 May 2010, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Könnölä, T. (2007). Innovation roadmap: exploring alternative futures of industrial renewal.
Contributed paper for the 2007 conference on corporate R&D (CONCORD): new and
emerging issues in corporate R&D, JRC-IPTS, 8-9/10/07.
Könnölä, T., Ahlqvist, T., Eerola, A. Kivisaari, S., Koivisto, R. (2009). Management of foresight
portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organisation,
Technological Analysis & Strategic Management 21(3), 381-405.
Könnölä, T., Brummer, V. and Salo, A. (2007). Diversity in Foresight: Insights from the fostering
of innovation ideas. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74, 608-626.
Mani, M.; Lyons, K. and Sriram, R. (2010). Developing a Sustainability Manufacturing Maturity
Model. The IMS Summer School – Manufacturing Strategy First Edition 2010: Sustainable
Manufacturing.
Pasquettaz, G. (2010). Sustainable manufacturing: main industrial needs. Proceedings from the
IMS2020 Summer School o Sustainable Manufacturing, 26-28 May 2010, ETH Zurich,
Switzerland.
Reger, G. (2001). Technology Foresight in Companies: From an Indicator to a Network and
Process Perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13(4), 533-553.
Rolstadas, A. (2010). IMS2020 Roadmap for Sustainable Manufacturing Research. Proceedings
from the IMS2020 Summer School o Sustainable Manufacturing, 26-28 May 2010, ETH
Zurich, Switzerland.
Salo, A.; Könnölä, T. and Hjelt, M. (2004). Responsiveness in foresight management: reflections
from the Finish food and drink industry. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation
Policy 1(1-2), 70-88.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Saritas, O. (2006). Systems Thinking for Foresight. PhD thesis, Manchester Institute of
Innovation Research.
Saritas, O. and Oner, M. A. (2004). Systemic analysis of UK foresight results: Joint application of
integrated management model and roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 71, 27-65.
Taish, M., Cassina, J., Cammarino, B., Terzi, S., Duque, N., Cannata, A. Urgo, M., Garetti, M.,
Centrone, D., Ibarbia, J. A., Kiritsis, D., Matsoki, A., Rolstadas, A., Moseng, B-, Oliveira, T.,
Vodicka, M., Bunse, K., Cagnin, C., Könnölä, T., Oedekoven, D., Bauhoff, F., Trebels, J.,
Hirsch, T., Kleinert, A., Carpanzano, E-, Paci, A., Fornasiero, R., Chiacchio, M., Rusinà, F.,
Checcozzo, R., Pirlet, A., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F. (2010). Action Roadmap on Key Areas 1, 2
and 3, IMS2020 project report, Milano, March 2010.
Weber M. (2006), “Foresight and Adaptive Planning as Complementary Elements in Anticipatory
Policy-making: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach”, in Voß J.-P., Bauknecht D.,
Kemp R. (eds), "Reflexive Governance For Sustainable Development", Edward Elgar
Publishing, http://www.e-elgar-environment.com/Bookentry_contents.lasso?id=3982
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GRAND CHALLENGES AND THE ROLES THAT
FTA CAN PLAY