web 2.0 for foresight 1 karel haegeman, 1 cristiano cagnin, 2 totti könnölä, 3 georgi dimitrov...
TRANSCRIPT
Web 2.0 for foresight
1Karel Haegeman, 1Cristiano Cagnin, 2Totti Könnölä, 3Georgi Dimitrov and 4Doug Collins
European Commission (1JRC-IPTS, 3DG EAC), 2Impetu Solutions, 4Spigit inc.
The 4th International Seville Conference onFuture-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
12 & 13 May 2011
Experiences on an Innovation Platform in European Agenda Setting
Web 2.0 for Foresight
organiser: Security and Defence Agenda
Global brainstorm
How to respond to 21st century security challenges?
4,000 participants
124 countries5 days
10 recommendations
2 examples of web 2.0 foresight in agenda setting
creating a new generation of public servants
2017: 150th anniversary of Canada
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
Web 2.0 for Foresight
For now mainly private sector use
Public sector web 2.0 foresight examples limited
Some authors studied the topic
Look at related fields: Web 2.0 in (market) research, mixing data of all types and sources (triangulation)
Schillewaert et al (2009) Two types of social networking platforms:
Primary research platform and Secondary research platforms
Da Costa et al (2008)Online social networks from the perspective of the Foresight Diamond (Popper, 2008): creativity, expertise, evidence and
interaction.
Gheorghiou et al (2009)Framework for a Delphi 2.0 platform for
future oriented communities
State of play
Rahti and Given (2010) Framework for quantitative and qualitative research in web
2.0 environments
Cooke and Buckley (2008) Trends facilitating the development of new approaches in
market research
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Figure 1: Connected research (Schillewaert et al, 2009).
From respondents to participants
From 1-to-1 learning to mutual learning and co-creation
From traditional to connected research
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
Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight
- 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
Reasons for NOT using a web 2.0 approach to foresight1
- 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
The framework
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Reasons for using a web 2.0 approach to foresight
bring creativity to the debate on priority settingexplicit 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 processDiscussions on the role of community building
Step 1: Rationales for using a web 2.0 foresight approach
The case
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 2: conditions to analyse
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:
- 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
- expectations about stakeholder involvement in other steps of the process
The framework The case
Possible consequences only partially discussed at the outset.
Control played an important role in scoping the exercise (see step 3), but full impact not clear from the outset.
Good flexibility to adapt the process, but no framework (thus discussions on changes were time consuming)
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
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
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)
The framework The case
○Recruitment channels: databases and snowball
○Platform activity: 80/20 rule
○Motivations to participate: possibility of
attendance to validation workshop
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Attributes for the design of web 2.0 foresight exercises
Step 3: scoping a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
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
The case
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
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´.
The case
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
Attribute 3: Degree of openness of the platform:
- 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
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
The framework The case
Openness: ´fairly closed´
Engagement possibilities:
- 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
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 framework The case
Pilot before launch: - 4 initial ideas uploaded by JRC-IPTS, pre-invitation 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 not work well: - social networking- discussion forum by idea or category- multi-criteria voting
Reasons: design and motivations?
Duration: 7 weeks
Functionalities that did work: - posting ideas (around 100 posts)- commenting ideas
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Posts per day Sign-ups per day Views per day
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)?)
Step 5: running a web 2.0 foresight exercise
The framework
The case
High fluctuation of platform activity based on communication activity
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Step 5: running a web 2.0 exercise
The framework The case
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 sense-making
Ideas by category (total=103)
17%
17%
14%13%
10%
9%
6%
5%
5%4%
Digital & Networked Society
Sustainable Production andConsumption
Health
Other
Energy
Climate Change
Mobility
Food
Demographic Change
Poverty
Instead critical success factors were identified to connect data in proposing new priority areas
A first attempt in grouping data: by category
Web 2.0 for Foresight
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)
Step 6: follow-up
The framework The case
To be determined
Web 2.0 for Foresight
Conclusions
2. Key design issues
clarity about process and outcome objectives
a systematic approach to tool selection
pilot before the launch
a clear view on data sense-making
certain degree of autonomy in the management of the foresight process.
simple platform design
communication
3. Barriers to increased application
resistance to increased transparency and loss of control
cultural issues
1. High potential for advancing transparency and the foresight toolbox
2006 IBM Innovation Jam: 150.000 participants in two times three days
lack of understanding