Abstract
The overall purpose of ForSTI is to provide input into policy and strategy planning and to mobilise collective strategic actions. In the Intervention phase we move on from the issue of formulating recommendations, to experience in following these through in the form of concrete action to implement structural and behavioural transformations. Actions suggested at this phase aim to give messages on the first and most immediate interventions to the existing systems. Operational level questions are asked for actions such as: ‘what and how’, ‘where and how’ and ‘who and how’. The actions for change are determined by considering the following capabilities of the system under investigation: (1) Adapting; (2) Influencing and shaping its context; (3) Finding a new milieu or modelling itself virtuously in its context; and (4) Adding value to the viability and development of wider wholes in which it is embedded. Action plans, Operational plans, Priority lists can be among the outputs produced at this phase, in addition to the outcomes achieved through ForSTI, such as networking, mutual learning and collective visioning, which are key enablers for follow up actions upon the completion of the exercise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
There is also much literature on this topic, for example Manson and O’Neill (2007).
- 3.
In the third cycle of the UK’s TFP, it was common for a series of “state of the science” reviews to be published for expert reference, alongside the less technical documentation.
- 4.
See for example projects described at http://www.cipast.org/cipast.php?section=1012 (CIPAST); http://cordis.europa.eu/interfaces/src/urban.htm (VALUE—see also http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01293.pdf); and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art8/ (All accessed 17/10/2015).
- 5.
See Kahane (2012) for heartening accounts of the use of scenario analysis to facilitate disruptive change.
- 6.
- 7.
However, interviewees were all supplied with interview guides, derived from the logic chart (presented earlier in Fig. 10.1) in an effort to achieve more consistency and comparability across their responses, as well as helping ensure that the whole rage of topics was covered.
References
Barre, R., & Keenan, M. (2008). Revisiting foresight rationales: What lessons from the social science and humanities? In C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, & R. Barre (Eds.), Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an innovative economy. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of public communication on science and technology. London: Routledge.
Cuhls, K., & Georghiou, L. (2004). Evaluating a participative foresight process: Futur—The German research dialogue. Research Evaluation, 13(3), 143–153.
EFMN. (2009). Mapping foresight: Revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future. Brussels: European Foresight Monitoring Network (EFMN), European Commission.
Georghiou, L. (1996). The UK technology foresight programme. Futures, 28(4), 359–337.
Georghiou, L. (2003). Evaluating foresight and lessons for its future impact. A paper presented at The Second International Conference on Technology Foresight, NISTEP, Tokyo, February 27–28. Accessed July 27, 2016, from http://www.nistep.go.jp/IC/ic030227/pdf/p6-1.pdf
Georghiou, L., Cassingena Harper, J., Keenan, M., Miles, I., & Popper, R. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of technology foresight. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Georghiou, L., & Keenan, M. (2004). Towards a typology for evaluating foresight exercises. Paper presented at EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13–14.
Georghiou, L., & Keenan, M. (2006). Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 761–777.
Georghiou, L., & Keenan, M. (2008). Evaluation and impact of foresight. In L. Georghiou et al. (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Georghiou, L., Keenan, M., Miles, I., Cameron, H., & Saritas, O. (2006). An evaluation of the UK Foresight Programme: Final report. UK Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry, 92.
Harvey, D., Gregory, J., Hoffert, M., Jain, A., Lal, M., Leemans, R., et al. (1997). An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report, in “An Introduction to Simple Climate Models Used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report”, IPCC Technical Paper II. In J. T. Houghton, L. G. M. Filho, D. J. Griggs, & K. Maskell (Eds.), Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: UNEP. Accessed July 27, 2016, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf
Herrera, A. O., Scolnik, H. D., Chichilnisky, G., Gallopin G. C., Hardoy, J. E., Mosovich, D., et al. (1976). Catastrophe or new society? A Latin American World Model. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. Accessed July 27, 2016, from http://cms.unige.ch/isdd/IMG/pdf/21147.pdf
Kahane, A. (2012). Transformative scenario planning: Working together to change the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Keenan, M. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation of the UK Technology Foresight Programme (Doctoral Thesis). The University of Manchester, Manchester.
Keenan, M. (2005). Designing for impacts of foresight. A presentation given at the For-Learn Mutual Learning, Workshop, Brussels. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.powershow.com/view/1184a1-NjkxN/Designing_for_impacts_of_Foresight_Dr_Michael_Keenan_PREST_University_of_Manchester_UK_FORLEARN_M_powerpoint_ppt_presentation
Keenan, M. (2006). An introduction to foresight. Presentation given at the UNIDO Technology Foresight Programme—Module 1: Technology Foresight for Organisers, Gebze. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://ictt.by/En/Docs/UNIDOTechForesight/201106/1-Introduction%20to%20Foresight%20Gebze%202006_keenan.ppt
Manson, N. C., & O’Neill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, I., Keenan, M., & Kaivo-Oja, J. (2003). Handbook of knowledge society foresight. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/pubdocs/2003/50/en/1/ef0350en.pdf
OECD. (2006). Government RTD funding and company behaviour: Measuring behavioural additionality. Paris: OECD.
Popper, R., Georghiou, L., Keenan, M., & Miles, I. (2010). Evaluating foresight: Fully fledged evaluation of Colombian technology foresight programme. Colombia: Universidad del Valle, Santiago de Cali. Available from http://community.iknowfutures.eu/action/file/download?file_guid=2204
POST. (1997). Science shaping the future: Technology foresight and its impacts. London: POST (United Kingdom Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology).
Wilson, A. (1998). Handbook of science communication. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miles, I., Saritas, O., Sokolov, A. (2016). Intervention and Impact: Outcomes, Action and Evaluation. In: Foresight for Science, Technology and Innovation. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32574-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32574-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32572-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32574-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)