Using foresight to formulate
national RDI priorities
Michael Keenan
Country Studies and Outlook Division,
Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, OECD
Conference on national research priorities
Prague – 21 June 2011
Some basic definitions to start with . . .
• Prioritisation refers to the conscious and deliberate selection of
certain activities, actors, policies or policy instruments at the
expense of others with an impact on resource allocation
• Foresight refers to systematic collective processes of exploring and
anticipating the longer term with a view to identifying actions to
take today in support of desirable futures
• Prioritisation processes involve
– Looking backwards to appreciate the evolution of scientific know-how
– Understanding current strengths and weaknesses of the research and
innovation system
– Looking forwards to anticipate and shape future opportunities and
challenges
What form do RDI priorities take?
Structural priorities
Research
Innovation
Thematic priorities
Linked
S&T areas
Issues
Priorities at different levels: OECD (1991) proposes three levels:
(i) policy (govt)
(ii) strategic (research funding agencies)
(iii) operational (research performing institutes)
In other words, the activity of formulating and implementing S&T
priorities tends to be highly decentralised.
Why prioritisation?
• Competing demands on S&T budgets – ‘internal’ scientific
‘excellence’ criteria alone would seem to be insufficient to limit the
number of projects to the resources available. So other ‘external’
criteria – often oriented around ‘relevance’ – need to be employed
• In addition, governments now view S&T as key determinants in the
development of knowledge economies and these are viewed as
requiring strategic steering
• Concerns over the so-called innovation gap (particularly in Europe)
mean that scientists alone cannot take the decision of which areas
are to be pursued. Rather, this decision-making process needs to be
opened-up to other actors in innovation processes
• Conclusion: we need to instigate a process that will identify strategic
S&T priorities, ‘strategic’ in the sense that priorities will contribute
towards innovation. Moreover, this process needs to involve a widerange of actors, reflecting the nature of the innovation process.
Contributions of research to innovation (1)
• The main channels of interaction between research and innovation
include the following:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Scientific record
Technological development
Mobility
R&D collaboration
Knowledge markets
Spin-offs
Advice, consultancy and extension
• Several different actors are key in the operation of these channels
• The ways in which these key actors conduct themselves are
influenced by multiple shaping factors
• Policies work by modulating these shaping factors and by
influencing key actors directly
Core Policies
Discretionary organisational
funding
Shaping Factors
Competitive R&D project
grants
Economic Development
Support for R&D
infrastructures
Researchers
Economic Specialisation
Centres of excellence
Research Universities
Industrial Ecology
Research > Innovation
Public Research Institutes
Geography
Collaborative R&D
programmes
Scientific Record
Scientific Unions
Financial Markets
Technology platforms
Technological Development
Technology Transfer Offices
Scope and Scale of Public
Research
Cluster initiatives
Mobility
Large Domestic Firms
R&D Collaboration
Large Foreign Firms
Public Research
Specialisation
Knowledge Markets
Traditional SMEs
Labour Market Regulation
University-industry linkage
schemes
Spin-offs
High-tech SMEs
Academic Careers
PhD studentships
Advice, Consultancy and
Extension
Regulatory Organisations
PSR Funding Regimes
Post-doctoral fellowships
Funding Organisations
IPR Regimes
Inter-sectoral mobility
schemes
Policy-Making
Organisations
Roles and Status of
HEIs/PRIs
Third Sector Organisations
Scientific Community Norms
Key Actors
Open Innovation
Science and technology
parks
Risk capital measures in
support of spin-offs
Entrepreneurship training
schemes
Technology diffusion
schemes
Examples of key actors, shaping factors and
core research policies
Innovation vouchers
Technology incubators
Contributions of research to innovation (2)
Shaping
factors
Research
activities
Policies
Innovation
performance
Actors
All of these components can be subject to prioritisation and/or shape the
implementation of priorities
Attractiveness
UK Foresight Prioritisation Criteria
Economic and
social needs
Opportunities
and
threats
Scientific and
technological
opportunities
Feasibility
Panel
Strategic
analysis
Potential to
apply
(industrial strength)
Strengths
and
weaknesses
Scientific and
technological
strengths
Attractiveness vs. Feasibility Matrix
UK Technology Strategy Board Priority Criteria






The degree to which technologies will have an impact on sectors
that are a major UK strength (e.g. pharmaceuticals and aerospace)
or have high growth potential;
The degree to which a particular technology will have an impact on
a number of sectors;
Strength of the UK SET base relative to other countries;
Potential economic, social, quality of life and environmental
benefits and scope for cross-government collaboration (e.g.
healthcare, energy);
Potential for spillover benefits and whether there is an
underpinning market failure; and
The degree to which there is scope for effective action by
Government or others.
The importance of an international perspective
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internationalisation of science
Position of firms in global value chains
Open innovation
Global challenges
Accessing international knowledge – absorptive capacity
International benchmarking to determine relative strengths and
weaknesses
• International policy learning
Assessment criteria and their operationalisation
• How to assess whether a given scientific or technical area will
further the pursuit of economic goals and social values more / less
than any other area? In other words, can S&T areas be assessed
against the criteria often deployed in foresight and priority-setting
exercises?
– This is very difficult to do by the lone expert, not least on account of the
expert’s limited knowledge of the various fields.
– But the inherent uncertainty around such outcomes – a manifestation
of a complex system – also often makes this a difficult and unreliable
assessment.
• These inherent uncertainties cannot be ‘engineered away’ through
methodology. There is the need to embrace social, discursive
approaches that provide access to decision forums by a wide variety
of actors.
– This isn’t easy and certainly doesn’t provide a panacea.
– It will also be uncomfortable for existing elites who may try to
undermine any such moves.
Common challenges in priority-setting
• Granularity / aggregation of thematic areas
• Criteria – absorptive capacity, critical mass, variety – at what levels
of aggregation do we want these?
• Viewing thematic and structural priorities in constellations
• Expertise to compare apples with pears
• Participation – who, how, when?
• Dealing with complexity and emergence
• Organisational positioning – outside/inside, safe space, boundaryspanning
• Paying attention to process / product
• Understanding the implementation context
• Path dependency and lock-in
• Transparent ‘audit trail’ – for purposes of accountability, but also to
signal appropriate intervention strategies
FORESIGHT FOR PRIORITYSETTING
What does a Foresight exercise look like?
• Many shapes and sizes!
• Common aspects: experts, panels, project team, fixed budget
and time, sponsor, reporting and recommendations
• Typical variations: methods used, methodological
sophistication, degree of participation, budget and time
available, time horizon, coverage, organisational configuration,
etc.
Who sponsors / carries out foresight exercises?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministries and other government agencies
Research Councils
Academies of Science and other research institutes
Universities
Regional Development Agencies
Industry Clusters
Large companies
Industry Federations
Private Foundations
International Organisations
…
Essentially, virtually any organisation can sponsor a foresight
exercise
Foresight uses in policy
FORESIGHT AS POLICY INFORMATION
Highlights the longer term
Extends perspectives
=>
More rational decision making
over space and time
FORESIGHT AS ADVOCACY COALITION-BUILDING
Highlights a given challenge
Gathers support around it
=>
Commitment to realisation
of a shared vision
FORESIGHT AS SOCIAL TECHNOLOGY
Old debates, new frames
Wide participation
=>
Hybrid fora for strategic
reflection, debate & action
Orientation of Foresight
PRODUCT/
CODIFIED
OUTPUT
MIXED
PROCESS/
NETWORK, TACIT
OUTPUTS
Priority implementation
•
•
•
•
Organising the implementation of priorities can be an integral part of the
priority-setting process itself.
There are a variety of intervention strategies open if an area scores poorly
on its feasibility ranking. Indeed, if the aim of the exercise is to identify
areas that need to be strengthened, then it may be that only these areas are
prioritised whilst the rest of the S&T base continues as before. This depends
on how the feasibility ranking was arrived at
Resources are needed to ensure that priorities are not a ‘dead letter’.
Furthermore, in the case of thematic priorities, there needs to be a scientific
and technological community of adequate size and skills in any selected
field if objectives are to be met. This is important to bear in mind, since
fields are frequently given priority status for the very reason that existing
R&D activity and capabilities are weak. The most frequent response to this
problem is to combine thematic and structural priorities (e.g. training of
young researchers, encouragement of foreign research groups to relocate,
etc.).
But implementation won’t happen overnight, irrespective of the resources
devoted to any priority. It takes considerable time to train new scientists
and engineers, to improve skills, to strengthen networks, and to constitute a
scientific and technological community.
Impacts to expect
• Foresight as policy information
– Decisions, resource allocations
• Foresight as advocacy coalition building
– New agenda formation, actor alignment and mobilisation
• Foresight as social technology
– Broadened participation, new networks and communities
Attributes for policy impacts
(Martin, 1996)
• Authority
– endorsement by and support of senior public officials and corporate
representatives is necessary for exercise to be regarded as a matter of
sufficient importance to influence decision-making
• Legitimacy
– involvement of all relevant stakeholders and avoiding undue influence
by vested interests
• Credibility
– results should be informative and well-founded, necessitating the use of
rigorous and transparent methods
Thinking some more about impacts . . .
• Need to take a broad view of WHAT constitutes an impact and
WHERE it might be found
– WHAT: tangibles and intangibles and their interdependency
– WHERE: systemic view
• Requires an understanding of policy, business, innovation, etc.
processes
• But also an appreciation of the scope of intervention that is
possible with foresight
• Incrementalism
• Impacts over time
• Challenge of measuring impacts
• Selling the benefits of foresight and expectation management
Being realistic . . .
• Radical policy change – foresight as a source of punctuation
(disturbance / disruption) in otherwise path-dependent
incremental policy change, e.g. through the detection of weak
signals, the formation of new actor coalitions, etc.
• Impacts dependent upon innovation system properties: in those
that are fragmented, foresight can serve to foster linkages and
enhanced social learning; in those that are ‘wired-up’ by close
linkages, foresight can act as a useful disruptor (though its
impact will depend on how much strategic intelligence the
system already has at its disposal)
Reported Impacts of foresight
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better informed strategies in general
Making the case for increased investments in R&D
Using foresight results to evaluate and future-proof strategies
More informed STI priorities
Development of new ways of thinking
Creating a language and practice for thinking about the future
Highlighting the need for a systemic approach to both policymaking and innovation
Development of reference material for policymakers and other innovation actors
Better evidence-based policy
A source of inspiration for non-governmental actors
Creation of new networks and clusters
Establishment of communication structures between innovation actors
Collective learning through an open exchange of experiences
Enhanced reputational position and positive image of those regions running a foresight
Better visibilities of a region’s strengths and competencies
Interest from the general public
Achievement of long-term reform of the productive system through a raised emphasis on
high technology
Accumulation of experience in using foresight tools and thinking actively about the future
Stimulation of others to conduct their own foresight exercises after being inspired
…
Designing for impacts
• Keep in mind impacts – and the ways you are going to attain them
– from the outset of the exercise, i.e. ensure you are outcomesoriented rather than outputs-oriented (a common error in
foresight, for example)
• Pay attention to the process – the source of many impacts
• Have a dedicated communications strategy
• Generate codified outputs that are informative and attractive to
their target audiences
• Build in an ‘aftercare’ phase – the results are unlikely to ‘speak for
themselves’, and the target audience may need assistance in making
sense of the results for themselves
• Above all else, be realistic as to what can be achieved, and
understand the mechanisms through which you expect your process
to have impacts
Major challenges for the Foresight manager / practitioner
• Keeping within time and budget – project management skills, but
also political skills
• Avoiding ‘BOGSAT’ by genuinely opening up the process, especially
to different perspectives
• Dealing with short-termism, i.e. a failure to look sufficiently
forwards (or backwards)
• Evidence-based – collecting, circulating and digesting information
• Getting people to act as individuals rather than as representatives
• Instilling creative thinking
• Unfamiliarity with some foresight methods
• Ensuring sustained participation
• Managing expectations of (policy) impacts
• Remaining relevant whilst pushing the boundaries
Impressions of problems with foresight
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limited vision => lock-ins, “me-too” behaviours, …
Limited (or tokenistic) participation
Limited integration of knowledge => novelty?
Limited data
Vision too vague or abstract for action
Too much ‘reinventing the wheel’ – foresight shares many
characteristics of other strategic practices
But also inappropriate transfer from one setting to another
Lack of appreciation of innovation and policy systems and the
way they work
Disconnection from ‘real’ centres of power – legitimacy?
Managing (unrealistic) expectations: long-haul view
Delineating principles of good practice
• Matching approach to objectives and context
• Learning from elsewhere, but being sensitive to the differences
between localities
• Being adaptive in managing a foresight exercise
• Taking a systems view of foresight and its context
• Appreciating the mechanisms through which foresight ‘works’,
e.g. learning, vision-building, agenda-setting, actormobilisation, etc. in addition to the systematic (rational?)
ordering of preferences and priorities
• Accepting that there is no ready-made formula for conducting a
successful foresight exercise
• Being patient for impacts to occur, and appreciating that many
will be difficult to attribute (solely) to the foresight exercise itself
Thank you!
Michael.Keenan@oecd.org