Transcript Slide 1

The 4th International Seville Conference on
Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
12 & 13 May 2011
Web 2.0 for foresight
Experiences on an Innovation Platform in European
Agenda Setting
1
Karel Haegeman, 1Cristiano Cagnin, 2Totti Könnölä,
3Georgi Dimitrov and 4Doug Collins
European Commission (1JRC-IPTS, 3DG EAC), 2Impetu
Solutions, 4Spigit inc.
Web 2.0 for Foresight
2 examples of web 2.0 foresight in agenda setting
Global brainstorm
2017: 150th anniversary of Canada
4,000 participants
How to respond to 21st
century security challenges?
5 days
124 countries
10 recommendations
organiser: Security and Defence Agenda
150 early-career public servants
How can Public Service meet
the challenges in 2017?
one year
participants were taught new skills for
each new phase
mutual learning about holistic
views on challenges
creating a new generation of
public servants
Web 2.0 for Foresight
State of play
For now mainly private sector use
Public sector web 2.0 foresight examples limited
Some authors studied the topic
Gheorghiou et al (2009)
Framework for a Delphi 2.0 platform for
future oriented communities
Da Costa et al (2008)
Online social networks from the perspective of the Foresight
Diamond (Popper, 2008): creativity, expertise, evidence and
interaction.
Look at related fields: Web 2.0 in (market) research, mixing data of all types
and sources (triangulation)
Cooke and Buckley (2008)
Trends facilitating the development of new approaches in
market research
Rahti and Given (2010)
Framework for quantitative and qualitative research in web
2.0 environments
Schillewaert et al (2009)
Two types of social networking platforms:
Primary research platform and Secondary research
platforms
Web 2.0 for Foresight
From traditional to connected research
Figure 1: Connected research (Schillewaert et al, 2009).
From respondents to participants
From 1-to-1 learning to mutual learning and co-creation
Web 2.0 for Foresight
A framework for primary web 2.0 foresight platforms
based on the For-Learn Foresight Cycle
Figure 2: Web 2.0 foresight cycle
(based on the For-Learn foresight cycle)
Development of each step of the cycle
Applied to a practical foresight experience for EIT
(performed by JRC-IPTS with support of DG EAC)
Web 2.0 for Foresight
The case study: EIT-IPTS foresight platform
Context: What is a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC)?
 Main instrument of the EIT
 Highly integrated, creative and excellence-driven innovation partnership
bringing together education, research and business
 Objectives: increase competitiveness in Europe and tackle societal
challenges
 Until now three KICs: Climate KIC, KIC ICTLabs, KIC InnoEnergy
 As part of the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) the EIT will propose
priority areas for future KICs
Foresight case:
 Aim: assist EIT to collect, assess and analyse ideas for "world-leading
innovation, integrating education, business and research with a focus on
specific thematic areas”
 Focus on research communities (university researchers, PRO´s and
private research)
 Potential to serve as input for the SIA together with other inputs
 Web 2.0 foresight approach
Web 2.0 for Foresight
The case study: EIT-IPTS foresight platform
Project roadmap
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 1: Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach
The framework
Reasons for using a web 2.0
approach to foresight
Reasons for NOT using a web 2.0
approach to foresight1
- allow stakeholders to learn more than they
give and not just to extract information
- when seeking to co-create more added
value than with traditional surveys
- when community building is targeted
- if the project client seeks to increase
transparency of its organisation or the way it
takes decisions
- when the client seeks to get wider support
from stakeholders in shaping decisions and
actions
- unwillingness to give control to participants
- aversion to accept and handle critique or
provide concrete solutions
- the belief that it will solve all the problems
- lack of resources and skills
- lack of fit between tools and research
objectives
- if the sole purpose is to be fashionable
- resistance towards unknown and fuzzy
outcomes at the outset
1Schillewaert
et al, 2009
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 1: Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach
The case
Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight
bring creativity to the debate on priority setting
explicit use of a bottom-up participatory process (themes for first wave
were decided top-down)
less relevant: community building
Lessons learned
Need to stress the focus all along the project, and manage expectations
(novel approach, lack of concrete examples, difficulties to describe
outcomes in concrete terms)
Increased transparency but without loosing much control over the
process
Discussions on the role of community building
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 2: conditions to analyse
The framework
The case
Need for support and ownership from policy-makers, not only in
running the foresight exercise, but also in using a collaborative
methodological approach and its consequences.
Possible consequences only
partially discussed at the outset.
Possible consequences:
Control played an important role in
scoping the exercise (see step 3),
but full impact not clear from the
outset.
- may involve a greater degree of loss of control
- a certain degree of flexibility to adapt the plan, and a good
framework tolerating this
- the form the outcomes will take may not be so clear from the
outset
Good flexibility to adapt the
process, but no framework (thus
discussions on changes were time
consuming)
- expectations about stakeholder involvement in other steps of
the process
Form of the outcomes was not very
clear from the outset.
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
Stakeholders:
Define way of recruitment - Possible channels:
○Use of existing databases (or construction of new ones)
○Snowball
○Promotion at existing online platforms
○Wider online and offline communication plan: press
release, post news items on portals, banners on related
websites
The case
○Recruitment channels: databases and
snowball
○Platform activity: 80/20 rule
Objectives: Outcome related and process related
(see step 1)
Motivations to participate:
Translate objectives into outcomes for each user group:
○learning about the content and about working in a
web 2.0 environment
○contributing to shaping future decisions
○build their own reputation as experts
○market own ideas to the community
○build new networks
○seek fame or fun (Bughin, 2008)
○Motivations to participate: possibility of
attendance to validation workshop
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise
Attributes for the design of web 2.0 foresight exercises
The framework
The case
Attribute 1: Degree of representation:
What? Balance between user groups, sectoral balance, or
other profile elements (age, geographic location, expertise)
When? Depends on the objectives
How?
- During recruitment: use channels with a high degree of control
(e.g. databases, focused user groups on social networking
sites).
- During implementation: use of moderation and techniques for
enhancement of activity
- During analysis: analyse results according to profile variables
An element of discussion all along
the process (due to unclarity in the
focus?)
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
The case
Attribute 2: Degree of steering of platform activity:
What? Indirect steering of platform content
Why?
- increasing the activity on the platform
- improving existing proposals or issues
- steer the content towards the objectives or expected
outcomes
- increase representation of different stakeholder groups
- increase creativity
How?
- Moderation on the platform: asking questions, adding
comments, flagging topics, move topics to a next stage
- Targeted messaging to platform members based on their
individual behaviour: ´Send your idea/topic to people you know
and invite them to comment/rate it´
- Tools for drawing attention to highlights: rankings, flagging,
tagging, summaries of discussions by platform ´journalists´.
Fairly low steering of the platform.
Also an element of discussion all
along the process.
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
Attribute 3: Degree of openness of the platform:
The case
Openness: ´fairly closed´
- Completely closed: Accessible for a predefined set of
participants (FTA preconference platform)
- Completely open: Accessibility for any member of the relevant
stakeholder groups (E.g. security Jam)
- Mixed approaches combining personal invitations e.g. with a
snowball or with targeted advertising.
Attribute 4: Degree of freedom to engage
Engagement possibilities:
Related to the degree of steering, although not contradictory to
it
How?
- platform members can add new topics for discussion
- they are engaged in shaping the next stage(s), in the analysis,
in the dissemination
- summarised information on members´ behaviour is available
- post, vote and comment ideas
- add new categories of ideas
- engagement in the workshop
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 4: web 2.0 methods and tools
The framework
The case
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 5: running a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
Pilot before launch:
- add some first contributions
- approaching leading names
- collect oral and written feedback on content,
functionalities, user-friendliness
Issues of design:
- Registration: members´ profile, compulsory and not
compulsory fields, which fields will be displayed?
- Differentiation between roles: visitor, member,
expert, moderator, administrator
- Customisation of information displayed to
participants, depending on their profile and interests:
´follow´ discussions, ideas, or other members;
alternative ways to display content (e.g. latest
discussions, topics by theme, most viewed, best
rated, most discussed).
- Simple design
- Duration of the platform: days or years?
The case
Pilot before launch:
- 4 initial ideas uploaded by JRC-IPTS, preinvitation to 35 researchers and 26 Commission
staff, 2 additional ideas added during the pilot
- oral and written feedback
- many improvements needed on functionalities
and clarity of understanding
- some more changes introduced after the launch
Functionalities that did work:
- posting ideas (around 100 posts)
- commenting ideas
Functionalities that did not work well:
- social networking
- discussion forum by idea or category
- multi-criteria voting
Reasons: design and motivations?
Duration: 7 weeks
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 5: running a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
Communication plan: relates to all the steps of the cycle
Privacy and ethics:
- use of a privacy statement and rules.
- Anonymity: are anonymous postings desirable?
- Suicide functionality
- IPR (Participants as co-authors of final products? - What data will be public (beyond the platform)?)
The case
High fluctuation of platform activity based on communication activity
Posts per day
Sign-ups per day
Views per day
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 5: running a web 2.0 exercise
The framework
Data sense-making:
- Two types of data: supplied by participants (text, votes,
pictures,…) or stemming from their behaviour (viewing
activity, networking data,…)
- Aspects facilitating sense-making:
- platform design based on a clear view on the
types of analysis targeted
- use of tools that allow for both data collection and
data analysis
- use of tools that allow the extraction of data in
formats that are suited for analysis and that
include links between different types of data.
- use of the platform community for data sensemaking
The case
A first attempt in grouping data: by category
Ideas by category (total=103)
Digital & Networked Society
5%
5%
Sustainable Production and
Consumption
4%
17%
Health
Other
6%
Energy
9%
17%
Climate Change
Mobility
10%
Food
13%
14%
Demographic Change
Poverty
Instead critical success factors were identified to
connect data in proposing new priority areas
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 6: follow-up
The framework
Dissemination of results:
- Part of communication plan (see 2.5)
- Use of the platform to disseminate results to the wider
network of the platform members
- Take into account ownership and authorship issues
Evaluation of web 2.0 foresight exercises:
- See For-Learn eight-step framework for conducting an
evaluation process
Lifetime of the platform:
- What will happen with the platform after the end of the
project?
- How to deal with stakeholders´ loss of information
about their contributions and their new contacts?
- Use of the platform in a more permanent way: for
follow-up stages of the project, during implementation of
actions, or as an ongoing discussion platform (e.g.
Atlantic Community)
The case
To be determined
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Conclusions
1. High potential for advancing transparency and the foresight toolbox
2006 IBM Innovation Jam:
150.000 participants in two times three days
2. Key design issues
pilot before the launch
simple platform design
certain degree of autonomy in the management of the foresight process.
communication
clarity about process and outcome objectives
a systematic approach to tool selection
a clear view on data sense-making
3. Barriers to increased application
lack of understanding
cultural issues
resistance to increased transparency and loss of control