UK Foresight: three cycles on a highway

International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-34

  Miles, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

foresight; futures studies; innovation policy; innovation systems; science and technology policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548588216     PISSN: 17402816     EISSN: 17402824     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJFIP.2005.007593     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Berkhout, F. and Hertin, J. (2002) ‘Foresight futures scenarios: developing and applying a participative strategic planning tool’, GMI Newsletter, available online at: http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/pdfs/gmi37ber.pdf.
2. Cole, H.S.D., Freeman, C., Jahoda, M. and Pavitt, K.L.R. (1973a) Thinking about the Future, London: Chatto & Windus.
3. Cole, H.S.D., Freeman, C., Jahoda, M. and Pavitt, K.L.R. (1973b) Models of Doom, New York: Universe Books.
4. DTI (2002a) New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology, available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/innovation/nanotechnologyreport.pdf.
5. DTI (2002b) Foresight Futures 2020 – Revised Scenarios and Guidance, London: DTI.
6. Encel, S., Marstrand, P. and Page, W., et al. (1974) The Art of Anticipation, London: Martin Robertson.
7. Fagerberg, J. (2004) ‘Innovation – a guide to the literature’, in J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project Working Paper (2003) Phase 1 Technical Report Drivers, January, scenarios and work plan available at: http://Foresight.gov.uk.
9. Freeman, C. (1987) Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London: Pinter.
10. Freeman, C. and Jahoda, M. (Eds) (1978) World Futures: The Great Debate, London: Martin Robertson.
11. Freeman, C. and Louçã, F. (2001) As Time Goes by – from the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Freeman, C., Jahoda, M. and Miles, I. (Eds) (1975) Problems and Progress in Social Forecasting, London: Social Science Research Council.
13. Georghiou, L. (1996) ‘The UK Technology Foresight Programme’, Futures, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.359–377.
14. Greeuw, S.C.H., van Asselt, M.B.A., Grosskurth, J., Storms, C.A.M.H., Rijkens-Klomp, N., Rothman, D.S. and Rotman, J. (2000) ‘Cloudy crystal balls: an assessment of recent European and global scenario studies and models’, Experts’ Corner Report: Prospects and Scenarios 4 European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, available online at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/Environmental_issues_series_17/en.
15. House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology Sixth Report (2001) Are We Realising Our Potential?, March, London: HMSO, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmsctech/200/20005.htm.
16. IoIR (2004) Prospecting Bioscience for the Future of Non-Food Crops presents the full report of the workshop, available at: http://les.man.ac.uk/cric.
17. Irvine, J. and Martin, B. (1984) Foresight in Science, London: Frances Pinter.
18. Keenan, M. (2002) Identifying Emerging Generic Technologies at the National Level: The UK Experience, PREST Discussion Paper Series No. 02–11, available at: http://les.man.ac.uk/PREST/People/Staff/Michael_Keenan.html.
19. Keenan, M. and Miles, I. (Eds) (2002) Practical Guide to Regional Foresight (Version 2), available in various country versions with local editors, Brussels: European Commission DG Research, available at: http://www.cordis.lu/Foresight/CGRF.pdf.
20. Martin, B. and Irvine, J. (1989) Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in Science, London: Pinter.
21. Miles, I. (2004) ‘Three worlds of Foresight’, presented at US-European Technology Forecasting and Assessment Conference, Seville, May, included on conference CDROM and website: http://www.jrc.es/home/Foresight_seminar/Presentations/.
22. Miles, I. and Keenan, M. (2003) ‘Two and a half cycles of Foresight in the UK’, TECHNIKFOLGENABSCHÄTZUNG: Theorie und Praxis (ITAS Journal on Technology Assessment), Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.41–49, available at: http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/032/inhalt.htm.
23. Molina, A. (1998) ‘The role of the technical in innovation and technology development: the perspective of sociotechnical constituencies’, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp.1–29.
24. Moll, P. (1991) From Scarcity to Sustainability: Futures Studies and the Environment, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
25. Norton, M.L. (1998) ‘Exploring the grey areas – interview with the director of the UK Parliament Office of Science and Technology (POST)’, Euroabstracts, April, available at: http://www.cordis.lu/euroabstracts/en/april98/inter1.htm.
26. OST (Office of Science and Technology) (1993) Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, Cmnd 2250, London: HMSO.
27. PA Consulting et al. (1992) The Identification of Emerging Generic Technologies – A Methodology for the UK, Report prepared for OST/DTI, PA Consulting with PREST, SPRU, & ISI, London.
28. Pavitt, K. (1980) Technical Innovation & British Economic Performance, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Phaal, R. (2003) ‘Technology roadmapping: linking technology development to market opportunity’, presented at UNIDO Training course Technology Foresight for Practitioners, October, Prague, Czech Republic.
30. Slack, R.S., Stewart, J.K. and Williams, R.A. (Eds) (1989) The Social Shaping of Multimedia, Luxembourg: Office for Offical Publications of the European Commission.
31. Strategy Unit (2002) Risk: Improving Government’s Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty, London: Cabinet Office, available at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/SU/RISK/REPORT/01.HTM.
32. Whiston, T. (Ed.) (1979) Uses and Abuses of Forecasting, London: Macmillan.
33. Williams, R. and Sorensen, K.H. (2002) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
34. Wood, J.V. (2001) ‘UK Foresight Programme – a panel chairman’s view’, in NISTEP (Ed.) The Proceeding of International Conference on Technology Foresight, March, available at http://www.nistep.go.jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat0774e.html.
35. Note to readers who are not native English speakers-try saying ‘cycle path’ quickly and thinking about near-homophones. The message of the joke, for present purposes, is that cycle paths can be powerful as well as taking unpredictable directions.
36. Whiston (1979) – an earlier methodological study was Encel et al. (1974).
37. Current awareness of our multifaceted environmental crisis has led many commentators to see Limits as a vital early warning call, that was unjustly undermined by conservative critics – among whom SPRU must be numbered. But SPRU pointed out that what we would now call ‘clean’ or at least ‘cleaner’ technology has to be part of the solution to environmental problems (unless we are to write off a large share of the world’s population), and that no inkling of this was given in Limits. Limits also focused on the question of resource depletion (admittedly a big problem in respect of biodiversity – but then Limits did not tackle this issue) and did not consider climate change (SPRU did, if inadequately – global cooling was still thought of as the issue by most people – though the nuclear industry had begun to agitate about carbon dioxide emissions!) and indeed did not include energy in its modelling efforts. For an interesting study of Limits and its aftermath, see Moll (1991).
38. For a recent restatement of the analysis, with further examination of Kondratiev waves, see Freeman and Louçã (2001).
39. Indeed, complaints to this effect go well back into the 19th century.
40. Dean Acheson’s dictum: as anecdotal evidence of its resonance, I even had to write an essay discussing this while at school in the mid-1960s.
41. This is based on my recollection of discussions at SPRU at the time; the book was officially greeted with silence.
42. See Irvine and Martin (1984) and Martin and Irvine (1989).
43. Official publications at this time were also announcing the death of the ‘linear model’ of innovation.
44. Note the similarity of the proposal in the final sentence to Norton’s suggestion that the second cycle might ‘target three to four particularly volatile sectors each year’.
45. Source: Foresight website FAQs at http://www.Foresight.gov.uk, accessed July 2004.
46. It may be noted that the aim to keep four projects active at any one time seems to have slipped. There has been quite a lot of speculation about forthcoming activities, with topics on critical infrastructures (including transport) and infectious diseases receiving some attention. One reason for delay may be the difficulty in building the necessary constituencies behind such projects – they need high-level and active support from various government departments. Another reason may be to do with the developments described in the concluding of this paper.
47. http://www.dti.gov.uk/innovationreport/.
48. Source: Hansard, House of Parliament website, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040607/text/40607w08.htm.
49. http://www.npl.co.uk/intersect.
50. See the website at http://www.strategy.gov.uk/.
51. The Strategy Unit’s website at http://www.strategy.gov.uk/ has a large number of Foresight-related studies in downloadable form. Previously this unit was known as the PIU (performance and innovation unit), under which title a number of studies benchmarking futures research, drawing out the main trends identified in leading studies, and so on. The evolution of the unit means that the UK has regained a group with interest in long-term strategy at the centre of government, since the unit reports directly to the most senior policymakers. This role had been played by the central policy review staff until Mrs. Thatcher abolished it in the 1980s.’
52. The DTI’s own futures work outside of the OST seems to have been wound down, though a physical facility – FutureFocus@DTI – is now maintained in the main offices, as a site at which visionary thinking can be cultivated. It features an ‘immersive theatre’, an ‘interactive society’ area, and a ‘creativity lab’ – and has a very different ‘feel’ from most government facilities. See http://www.futurefocusdti.org.uk/. This site was used for the PinPoint workshop on positioning technologies that is mentioned in the text.
53. Strategic audit: discussion document, available at http://www.strategy.gov.uk/output/page696.asp.
54. INFORMATION BRIEF: DEFRA’s Horizon Scanning Programme, 2004 (mimeo), provided by Rohit Tawar, Programme Manager for DEFRA’s Horizon Scanning in the Science Strategy Team. Much material – including some early results of HS projects-are available at http://www.escience.defra.gov.uk/horizonscanning.
55. For the UK Government’s response to the BSE Inquiry, see http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/general/response.pdf.
56. See the horizon scanning strategy document at http://www.defra.gov.uk/horizonscanning.
57. Available at http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/advice/.
58. See http://www.erff.org.uk/Horizonscanning.asp. There are interesting results from a survey of member organisations, as to their horizon-scanning and other futures activities, at this site.
59. Members include the biotechnology and biological sciences research council (BBSRC), the department for the environment, food and rural affairs (DEFRA), the department of trade and industry (DTI), the economic and social research council (ESRC), the engineering and physical sciences research council (EPSRC), the environment agency (EA), the medical research council (MRC), the meteorological office, the natural environment research council (NERC), the Scottish executive environment and rural affairs department (SEERAD) and the Scottish environment protection agency (SEPA).
60. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_science/documents/page/dft_science_025626.hcsp.
61. See http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ResearchAndDevelopment/fs/en.
62. At http://www.publichealth.bham.ac.uk/horizon/.
63. Material downloadable from UNIDO courses at, for example, http://www.tc.cz/dokums_publikace/tf-course-textbook-unido_1085_11.pdf.
64. The European Union’s joint research centre in Seville (the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies) constructed a large-scale technology roadmap out of the results of the series of Foresight studies conducted in Europe in the 1990s – see the website at http://fwwe.jrc.es.
65. See http://www.Foresightvehicle.org.uk/technology_road_map.asp.
66. http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/index.cfm?fast=spacestrategy.
67. A report of this should be available by the time of publication of this paper on the Pinpoint website at http://www.pinpoint-faraday.org.uk/.
68. The study was used to prepare a brief memorandum by the Forum, whose members reported to have had some influence on policy development in the UK.
69. This is not to say that roadmapping is absolutely unable to cope with alternative scenarios. For practical and sociological reasons, however, most roadmaps presuppose a single future, with at best minor variations.
70. http://www.ukresilience.info/.
71. Quoted from:http://www.qinetiq.com/home/markets/security/securing_your_business/contingency_planning_and_resilience_building/scenario_planning.html.
72. Material derived from JDCC website at http://www.jdcc-strategictrends.org/index.asp.
73. The project website is at SPRU http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/Foresight/.
74. The ICT and biotechnology scenario reports are reported on the CRIC http://les1.man.ac.uk/ cric and DTI http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/futures/ict/intro.htm websites.
75. Available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/innovation/nanotechnologyreport.pdf.’
76. Reports available at http://les.man.ac.uk/prest and http://www.altfutures.org.
77. For interesting accounts of the production and wide application of the earlier version of these scenarios, see Berkhout and Hertin (2002).
78. One working paper posted on that project’s website goes to great lengths in clarifying methodological distinctions between drivers, responses, and system descriptors, in the course of scenario analysis. See Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project Working Paper (2003).
79. http://www.ha-research.co.uk/projects/index.php?id=640.
80. The European Commission’s DG Research features a Directorate on Technology Foresight and Socio-economic Research which has funded numerous projects, networks, and workshops here. For one set of outputs, see http://foren.jrc.es and for a brief account of relevant activities see http://www.cordis.lu/itt/itt-en/02–1/ire06.htm.
81. Politically-defined regions are often rather poorly mapped onto regional innovation systems and milieux.
82. See http://futurewales.com.
83. Knowledge Capital 2003, Manchester, at http://les.man.ac.uk/prest.
84. Source: Paragraph 8.17 from Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014 available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//1FF08/spend04_sciencedoc_8–9_090704.pdf.
85. See the website at http://www.regionalfutures.com.
86. Source: Box 8.1 and accompanying text (paragraphs 8.13 and 8.18) from Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014 available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//1FF08/spend04_sciencedoc_8–9_090704.pdf.
87. This is confirmed by two developments while this paper was being edited. In December 2004, the OST announced in the Foresight Newsletter (e-Sight) that it had set up a Horizon Scanning Centre, as part of the government’s ten year investment framework for science and innovation. This Centre should undertake regular cross-departmental scans, underpinning departmental scanning activity and informing cross-departmental priorities (the first strategic horizon scanning exercise should report by December 2005) engage in project work with departments (pilot trials have been started) provide tools and support to spread good practice in departmental horizon scanning. The Centre’s head previously ran DEFRA’s Chief Scientist’s Advice and Liaison Team – and its Horizon Scanning programme. Meanwhile, the DTI’s Technology Strategy Board was formed in October 2004, and will determine priorities for £320 million DTI funding over the period 2005 to 2008 ‘to support businesses investing in new and emerging technologies’. The Board is chaired by an IBM Vice President and Laboratory Director, and members include several regional government representatives, in addition to academic, industry and central government stakeholders. The DTI announced in January 2005 that £60 million was being provided in funding for 56 Technology Strategy projects in seven areas critical to innovation and economic growth, ‘targeting priority areas for R&D investment… a key part of the Technology Strategy.’ Exactly how priorities are determined is not spelled out. (DTI Press release, 11 Jan 2005 – see also http://www.dti.gov.uk/technologyprogramme.)