My foresight reenergizing education


Published on

News, view points as well as insights into foresight and future oriented activities in Malaysia.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

My foresight reenergizing education

  1. 1. LEADER’SINSIGHTSIn person withDr. Sonia OrtegaEXPERTS’INSIGHTSExploring The NextFrontiersINDUSTRYINSIGHTSThe Mismatch:Finding The Best FitViewpointsWaste not wasted04 20 320601/2013ENABLINGTHE FUTURE:Re-EnergizingMalaysia Educationfrom Cradleto Career
  2. 2. ‘ TRANSFORMINGRAIL MOBILITY IN ASIA ’OR ATTACH YOURBUSINESS CARD HEREPlease send me more information on RAILASIA 2013I would like toFor further information, please complete and fax to:+603-2770 5301Exhibit - Please send us a proposal for_______sqm (min. 9 sqm)VisitName: Title:Company’s Name:Address:Tel: Fax:Email:Hosted by: Supported by:Media Partner:For more informationTel: 603-4041 9889 | Fax: 603-2770 5301 | Email: |
  3. 3. 01/2013myForesight®features04 282432ADVISoRMohd Yusoff SulaimanEDIToR-IN-CHIEFRushdi Abdul RahimwRITERSDr. Sonia OrtegaDr. Raslan AhmadJasmin BabaAbd. Rahim Abu Talib, Ph.DDr. Badariah SallehPierre RosselCristiano CodagnoneGianluca MisuracaMohd Nurul AzammiNatrah Mohd EmranRuzanna Abdul RahmanAhmad Razif MohamadCoNTRIBUToRSAni Suzila AnasNorsam Tasli Mohd RazaliAmallia Ahmad ZainiMohd Kamaruzaman AbdullahAhmad Nazri AbudinPUBLISHED BYMalaysian Foresight InstituteMIGHT3517, Jalan Teknokrat 563000 Cyberjaya,Selangor Darul Ehsanwww.myforesight.myFoR INQUIRIESmyForesight®Phone : +603 8315 7888Fax : +603 8312 0300E-mail : : www.myforesight.myDISCLAIMERAny article included in thispublication and/or opinionsexpressed therein do notnecessarily reflect the views of themyForesight®but remain solelythose of the author(s).The Publisher is not to be heldresponsible for any copyrightviolation of articles, which havebeen provided by contributingwritersPP17630/12/2012(031478)01/2013insideEDIToRIAL BoARDEDIToR’S NoTE02 Initial ThoughtsLEADERS INSIGHTS04 In person withDr. Sonia OrtegaEXPERTS INSIGHTS06 Foresight and Policy Modelling on ICT for Governance:Exploring The Next FrontiersINDUSTRY INSIGHTS20 The Mismatch: Finding The Best Fit24 Science Stream Education: What the Future Holds?CoVER SToRY28 Enabling The Future: Re-Energizing Malaysia EducationFrom Cradle To Career31 FoRESIGHT INTERCoNNECT™myForesight®Book ClubVIEwPoINTS32 Waste Not Wasted35 Nurturing Today’s Talent for Future Leaders42 Infographic - Education & Jobs Opportunity
  4. 4. 01/2013 myForesight®2InitialThoughtseditor’s noteBYRUSHDI ABDUL RAHIMDirectormyForesight® glad to say though myForesight® - MalaysianForesight Institute; have been operational as aninstitute for quite some time under the purviewof MIGHT, we have just finalized the appointmentof the our Governing Board and we are honouredto have the Science Advisor to Malaysia’s PrimeMinister, Prof. Emeritus Dato Sri Dr. Zakri AbdulHamid as our Chairman.We believe that members of the Governing Board(please see the next page) will bring theirextensive experience and insights intomyForesight®’s work where we hope to initiatefuture oriented subject or topic for discussionsand attention.It is the intent of myForesight® to undertakeprojects that will draw upon a range of disciplinesand deal with key issues where science andtechnology offers valuable insights & solutions.We believe that by looking ahead further thanthe conventional norms would enable us to assistthe Government and the relevant stakeholders tostrike the right balance between long-termthinking & tackling issues that needs immediateattention.OurgoalisthatanyForesightprojectmust:• Looking at least 10 years ahead;• Future-oriented and based upon science &technology;• Trans-disciplinary, and policy issues that cutacross ministries/departmental boundaries;• Can produce results that can influenceGovernment policy;• Will not duplicate work taking place elsewhere;• Has support in and commitment from keystakeholders.myForesight®willbeundertakingthisinthreeways:• Foresight Projects: Looking at major issues10-20 years into the future, which providefutures and evidence analysis to fill a specificgap in existing policy understanding;• Horizon & Trend Scanning: Framework incontinuous monitoring of trends to pick upweak signals and emerging issues;• Capacity Building: Training, toolkits andnetworkstostrengthenfuturesthinkingcapacityand share best practice within and acrossgovernment.On the subject of capacity building, one of theelement to address in looking at the future will bethemostimportantofall,us;people,thehumanbeing.That is why a lot of effort is being put forth to lookinto this matter, ensuring the future generationsare given the right skills and knowledge.Therefore,forthisparticularedition,wearededicatingalmostthewholemagazinetothesubjectofcapacitybuilding and human capital development.For the past year, we have been fortunate enoughtomeetupwithprominentpersonalitieswhospeakspassionatelyaboutcapacitybuildingandeducation.One of the highlights would have been anenlightening conversation we had with Dr. SoniaOrtega of US, National Science Foundation whohave abundance of experience in tackling theissues of education especially in the subject ofS.T.E.M (Science, Technical, Engineering &Mathematics). You can read about her thoughtson the subject matter in page 4.We are also presenting the viewpoints andarguments about future mismatch of skills andknowledge and the type of jobs that will beavailable for the next 10 years. One of theinteresting things we found is that currently inthe top 20 companies in Malaysia less than 40%of the top management are of the technicalbackground. This begets the question “whatcareer prospect are there for science students?”since we are pushing for more enrolment in thescience stream.As usual, we hope you find the magazinebeneficial and thought provoking.We expect you to have your opinion on certainmatters. We want to hear them. We welcomeyour feedback and contributions.“Greetings & Salutations,It is my pleasure to bring you the latest edition of myForesight® magazine, the first one for 2013.We hope your 2012 has been a good one and in hindsight would enable you to undertakeforesight with gusto.”We believe that bylooking ahead furtherthan the conventionalnorms would enableus to assist theGovernment to strikethe right balancebetween long-termthinking & tacklingissues that needimmediate attention
  5. 5. 01/2013myForesight®1‘ ‘A knowledge-interfacinginstitute, that promotes and harnessstrategic national development throughforesight methodology and initiativesVision:To be a renowned foresight center that integratesidea and promotes networking across a broadspectrum of individual futurists, private think tanksand academic establishmentsMission Statement:To be a Referral center for Foresight and future studiestowards a sustainable future for the country by connectingresearchers & decision makers in developing a vision ofthe future for the country and providing brain trust &decision support on future oriented areas and activities.myForesight®3Prof. Emeritus Dato’ Sri DrZakri Abdul HamidScience Advisor toThe Prime Ministerof MalaysiaMohd Yusoff SulaimanPresident & Chief Executive OfficerMIGHTMd Arif MahmoodVice PresidentCorporate Strategic PlanningPETRONASTan Sri Datuk Dr.Ahmad Tajuddin AliChairmanUEM Group BerhadDato’ Sri Dr. Halim ShafieChairmanTM BerhadChairmanBoard MembersMalaysian Foresight Institute
  6. 6. 01/2013 myForesight®4leader’s insightsDr. Sonia ortegaIn person withRole of Science in High TechnologyDevelopment in MalaysiaThe role of technology and the developmentof Science go hand-in-hand. We cannot haveone without the other. Science and Technology(S&T) is the future. Their contributions shouldbe monitored and channelled to the right sectors.S&T is an essential component to move a countryforward.Malaysia’s education scenarioMalaysia has its own standard National EducationSystem which should be complimented.Withoutthe national curriculum, the implementation ofS&T education programmes would bedependent on individual states that have theirown curriculum, making it difficult not just to thestudents but teachers and parents too.Malaysia’s S&T education path is on the righttrack, there are a lot of potential in numerousways to move forward in S&T innovation, and Ihave been very pleasantly surprised with someof the things that I have seen in Malaysia.Instilling the interest of S&TThere are several components needed to beincluded in S&T education. One:You need a goodcurriculum. A good national curriculum wouldmake it easier to promote S&T education toeveryone because it is standardized. Two:Teachers need to be well prepared in terms ofknowledge and material to enable them to teachand encourage students. Three: We need to finda way to evaluate what the children are learningin order to assess the efficiency of the teachingskills. These three components have to worktogether.Therehastobewillingness.S&Teducationneeds to be put forward as a national prioritybecauseitisimportantforthecountry’sdevelopment.Another important consideration is how S&T istaught. There has to be an engagement. It is notjust about learning and memorizing facts.Youngpeople, i.e. students, have to be engaged in theeducation, involving them in the process of S&Tand allow them to experience hands-on activities.Malaysia has a lot of programmes that aremoving forward with this approach, and has hadso for many years. It is also pleasing to find outthat not only Malaysia but the whole region hasalso been engaging S&T education, and there isa movement towards the hands-on method ofteaching and learning science.Critical Issues in EducationCritical issues in education are subjective. Ingeneral, the beginning is most critical. The basicessence is to engage young people who want tolearn.Then it can be sub-categorised into differentgroups – Primary Education, Formal Education,Informal Education, College Education, GraduateEducation, and Science Education – with manydifferent aspects depending on how you want touphold the education structure.Who is responsible?Inthe20thcenturythepeoplewhotrainthestudentsare the professors and teachers. However, in the21stcentury,thereisawideaccesstoinformationandthe young people today have more accessibilityto information. Nowadays, there is no excuse forthe young people to be ignorant about sciencecareers because they can simply‘GOOGLE’it. It iseveryone’sresponsibility,thewholesociety–parents,teachers, and the young people – to learn howto look for information because it is so mucheasier than back in the days when looking forinformation means having to go to the library,and even not knowing where to start.OnteachingasasecondarycareerpathIt is unfortunate that teaching is quite commonlythought of as a secondary job.This problem existsin many other places as well. Only a few countriesuphold the teaching profession as a highlyrespected profession, where teachers are verywell respected. This is not the way it ought to be.After all, teachers are responsible in educating thenext generation. Thus, it is very unfortunate tonot be able to raise the teaching profession to ahigher standard with salary. If that is done, theteaching profession would be more attractiveand competitive, and the incentive to be ateacher would be higher.The right time to train individualsfor their careersThe right time to start educating individuals iswhen they are in middle-school: 12-15 years ofage. This is when they start to either gain or loseinterest in science. We notice that a lot of youngchildren are interested in science but, as theygrow to adolescence age, they lose it. However,if the interest in science is retained, the next stepis when they start developing into it. This is thetime to be constantly encouraging children tolook forward to science and communicate withother people in the field to know the possibilitiesand options of science. The interested childrenwould be asking lots of related questions like:S&T is an essentialcomponent to movea country forward.
  7. 7. 01/2013myForesight®5leader’s insights“What are the opportunities they have when theygraduate?”, “What kind of jobs?”, “How muchmoney will they make?”and so on.We need moreprogrammes that help young science studentssee the opportunities available to them and thecompetition they would face at an early age.Arts Stream over Science Stream?This issue does not concern Malaysia alone butmany other countries as well. People do notknow their career options when they venture intoscience.They think that the only career in scienceis as a professor at the university or a researcher.They do not know that science education canbring about careers in industries and non-profitorganizations as consultants, entrepreneurs andso on. In my view, these people don’t know theoptions available, therefore they do not considergoing into the science stream because they thinkscience stream provides limited career choice.The industries should also be involved along theway. Some companies have vested interest in thiscourse because they also want people to jointhem in the future. It would be good if theindustries support some of the initiatives sincethe return of investment will affect them,especially in the aspects of future developmentof human capital. It is important to have peoplewho are prepared and ready to work. It benefitsindustries to support science, not only for theirown advantages but, to create a better web,partnership with universities, schools and thecommunity.The top 10 jobs in 2010 did not existin 2001: Are we preparing studentson the right education track?Some of the top careers of today did not existbefore, but there are a few basic elements thatcan lead the young people on the right track andprepare them for the future careers. One of themis to be a problem solver: Knowing how to solveproblems is a skill that can be applied to anycareer, whether in business or science. Next skillthat needs to be acquired is critical thinking as itis essential for decision making. Then the skill ofleadership is important for those who are in theleadership roles because it teaches how to lead.Teambuilding skill is also important as it allowsindividuals to adapt and work in teams. The lastelement is communication skill, i. e. to be able toconvey the appropriate message or informationin the right manner.Thesecriticalskills:Problemsolving,criticalthinking,leadership, teambuilding, and communicationare required in any line of career. If students areeducated in critical skills and technical skills,whether in accounting, business, science, orengineering, they are better prepared for thefuture, and even in careers that do not exist yetbecause those critical skills are helpful regardlessof the type of jobs they would be engaged in.To be exam-oriented or not to beThere is the tendency to over test students, notonly in Malaysia but, in several other parts of theworld as well. So much of emphasis is put on thetest that teachers end up teaching for thepurpose of the test. Teachers want their studentsto pass the test as it is used to measure theircapabilities. This could prevent some teachersfrom engaging in more creative ways of teachingas they are afraid that engaging in inquiry-basedor place-based methods might lead to theirstudents to not getting good results or even failthe test, and this would reflect poorly on them.In my opinion too much test prevents creativity.Science education challenge:US case studyIn terms of science education, the USA is facingproblems with teachers insufficiently trained andchildren learning science merely to pass tests. Onthe other hand, graduates who are training tobecome scientist lack the critical skills. In order tosolve this problem, the former Director of theNational Science Foundation (NSF) decided tocombine these two factors together by havingthe students of science and engineering link withelementary and secondary schools – withchildren and teachers.The basic aim of the link is to benefit the children,teachers and graduate scientists. It would enablethe children to obtain a hands-on approachtowards the process of science – to engage thechildren in science. Second, it would provideteachers with the tools and backgroundnecessary for better teaching application for theinfusion of sciences into the classrooms.Third, thelink allows scientist graduates to learn criticalskills, for instance, translate their own researchinto a simpler medium for the children and bringtheir research into the classrooms. This systemwas designed to be a win-win situation that helpseverybody: Helps teachers acquire moreknowledge in science and enable them toencourage and excite the children by showingthem career opportunities in science; and toprepare graduate scientists for any career path,and to be able to communicate and gain thesupport of the public towards their researches.The engagement between universities andschool system would open up the bridge ofcommunication between them. The schoolsystem will learn that universities have resourcesthey can utilise and experts they can approach toseek advice on preparation of lessons; andexpertise and materials if there is need to set uptheir laboratories, or when taking students oneducational field trips. This is a complex systemthat is aimed to benefit all participants, givingvery positive experience to everyone.Final WordsIt has been a great opportunity being in Malaysia.The support has been tremendous and verygood. It has given me the exposure to severalpeople and organizations that will add to apositive experience and learn things that I wasnot aware of previously. I do also seeopportunities for future involvements with thenetwork that has been developed here in mystay. I would like to see on-going cooperationbetween USA and Malaysia among scientists,teachers, schools, and the different organizations.This opens the opportunity of having Malaysia-USA collaboration. I hope to se more people fromthe USA coming to Malaysia and from Malaysiato the USA, and working together.S&T education needsto be put forward asa national prioritybecause it is importantfor the country’sdevelopment.Critical skills:Problem solving,critical thinking,leadership,teambuilding, andcommunicationare required in anyline of career.Dr. Sonia OrtegaProgram Director,Division of Graduate Education,U.S. National Science Foundation(NSF)U.S. Science Fellow Dr. Sonia Ortega arrived inMalaysia on September 2, 2012 to begin a two-month working visit with the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT)in connection with the Global Science andInnovation Advisory Council and Ministry of HigherEducation Cradle to Career initiative.Dr. Ortega specializes in STEM (science, technology,engineering and mathematics) education programsattheU.S.NationalScienceFoundation.Sheisespeciallyinterested in developing strategies to engageyoung students in science and technology studies.
  8. 8. 01/2013 myForesight®6experts’ insightsFoRESIGHT AND PoLICYMoDELLING oNICT FoR GoVERNANCE:EXPLoRINGTHE NEXTFRoNTIERSCristiano CodagnoneEuropean Commission,Joint Research Centre, Institute forProspective Technological Studies(IPTS) Seville, Spaincristiano.codagnone@ec.europa.euGianluca MisuracaEuropean Commission,Joint Research Centre, Institute forProspective Technological Studies(IPTS), Seville, Spaingianluca.misuraca@ec.europa.euBYPierre RosselCollege of Management ofTechnology, EcolePolytechnique Fédérale deLausanne (EPFL), Lausanne,
  9. 9. 01/2013myForesight®71 Introduction1.1 Policy resistance in an age of complexityToday, society and the economy are moreinterconnected, unstable, andunpredictable than ever. Furthermore,developments in Information andCommunication Technologies (ICT) arehappening at a very fast pace. The Internetas we know it today is already a remarkablecatalyst for creativity, collaboration andinnovation, providing possibilities thatwould have been impossible to imaginejust two decades ago. If one had predictedthen that, today, children would freelyaccess satellite images of any place onearth, interact with people fromeverywhere and search trillions of data witha simple click on their PCs, one would havebeen taken for fool [Misuraca et al., 2010].Current policymaking strategies and alsothe ways of procuring supporting evidencefor policy decision making are no longerable to cope with complex,multidimensional and highly dynamicsocietal challenges. For more than 60 years,society has largely failed to eradicate criticalsocial challenges despite investingincreasing resources into state policyactivity [Ormerod, 2010]. It appears thatpolicy resistance is responsible for thesefailures. Policy resistance occurs when anintended policy outcome is defeatedintentionally or unintentionally by complexand dynamic elements, agents, factors, firstorder and second order feedback loops,and so on. The causes are typicallymultidimensional and found throughouthistory [Sterman, 2006].On the other side, we now have at ourdisposal a radical increase in computingpower along with outstandinglywidespread distribution of networkedcommunities. The possibility of collectingand processing huge amounts of data atmoderate costs was unthinkable only adecade ago. These developments have ledto the emergence of futuristic visions, suchas ‘singularity’ which suggests thatcomputers will exceed human cognitivecapabilities and an ‘intelligence explosion’which could, among other things, prolongand improve quality of life [Kurzweil, 2005].However, current tools and approaches forpolicydesign,implementationandevaluationare ill-suited to capturing this complex andinterconnected future. Moreover, they arebased on an abstract and unrealistic visionof the human being: rational (utilitymaximising), average (not heterogeneous),atomized (not connected), wise (thinkinglong-term), often highly simplified(complexity denial) and politicallycommitted [Piniewski, Codagnone andOsimo, 2011 forthcoming].In short, the intellectual framework uponwhich policy making rests is no longeradequate. Our claim is therefore that aparadigmatic shift in developing a newpolicy modelling framework is required.However, this is not simply a matter of morecomputing power and more data. Multiplelongstanding challenges may also need tobe addressed.Critics however may wonder if the inherentcomplexity of our free living systemsincreased. Is todays society and economymore unstable and unpredictable thanexperts’ insightsAbstractThis paper is in part based upon the result of the foresightexercise based on scenario design conducted in 2010 by theInformation Society Unit of the JRC IPTS as part of theCROSSROAD Project – A Participative Roadmap for ICT researchon Electronic Governance and Policy Modelling. Overall, theresearch aimed to push the boundaries of traditionaleGovernment research and help resolve the complex societalchallenges Europe is facing by the application of ICT-enabledinnovations and collaborative policy modelling approaches,whichincludetheharnessingofcollectiveintelligence,agent-basedmodelling, visual analytics and simulation, just to mention a few.By looking at the future of ICT-enabled governance through fourthought-provoking visionary scenarios, the research helpspolicymakers to foresee how European society could becometwenty years from now, thanks to advances in ICT for governanceand policy modelling. The scenarios, their formulation andinterpretation,exposethegapstherearetodayinresearchandwhatneeds to be addressed in order to enable better governance andconstruct a more open, innovative and inclusive digital Europetomorrow. The study thus draws a framework for analysis ofcurrent and future challenges in ICT for governance and policymodelling and of what the resulting implications for citizens,business and public services would be.By combining scenarios design with gap analysis and technologyroadmapping, the research identified a set of Grand Challengesto define the Roadmap on the future research on ICT forgovernance and policy modelling. Building on the findings ofthis research activity, which links very diverse researchdisciplines with practitioners views and policy makers’concerns,through a multi-stakeholder and participatory approach, thepaper elaborate further on highlighting some paradoxes ofcurrent ICT-enabled societal modelling efforts, and address theissues of measuring and modelling of the Information Society.In doing so, the paper attempts to link foresight techniques withpolicy modelling approaches and to assess their implications forthe future Digital Europe 2030. Innovation, sustainability,economic recovery and growth will in fact depend more andmore on the ability of policy makers to envision clearly andeffectively both the root causes and the possible solutions tocomplex, globalised issues.The paper concludes presenting some policy and researchchallenges that policy makers will be confronted to inimplementing the Digital Agenda for Europe, which aims toincrease growth and competitiveness of the EU in the fastevolving global landscape, and address the grand challenges ourworld is confronted with today. Going further, the paperproposes some suggestions for future research oriented towardscombining foresight techniques with policy modelling in searchof an integrated and distributed policy intelligence paradigm.Keywords: Foresight, Policy Modelling, ICT, GovernanceDisclaimer: The views expressed in this article are purely thoseof the authors and may not in any circumstances be regardedas stating an official position of the European Commission.The pace at which theelements of the visionsunfold will, however, beinfluenced by the speed ofchange of the overalltechnological landscapeand societal context.
  10. 10. 01/2013 myForesight®8experts’ insightsever? Certainly changes are ubiquitous.Theworld is increasingly interconnected via theInternet and other new media. Most wouldagree that complexity and unpredictabilitywere also robust thirty or forty years ago. Asa matter of fact, since 1957 the neoclassicalhomo oeconomicus approach (thatchoices are made based on fully rationalhuman) (see Herbert Simon, 1957), hasbeen challenged1. In 1985 the Americansociologist Marc Granovetter [1985],advancing beyond his first 1973 classic onthe ‘strength of weak ties’ [Granovetter1973], argued that rationality is sociallyembedded and not exercised in a socialvacuum. In other words, we act accordingto the socially shaped structure ofopportunity we face, using and beinginfluenced by the network of socialrelations into which we are embedded2.These important social pressures may gounobserved and not be considered inpolicy design, implementation andevaluation thus enabling a mountingsystemic policy resistance and defeatingthe policies using only the traditional toolsof policy making such as regulation andincentives3. In other words, when changingtastes and preferences are influenced bysocial interaction, a simple‘stick and carrot’incentive based policy or regulation may beimpotent in effecting desired change. Inaddition, restricting full freedom of choicemay backfire and trigger unintentionalsystemic resistance to the policy. However,opportunities for policy-making may beenhanced precisely because we do not actstrictly according to instrumental rationality.Our actions are not always self-interestedyet may still lead to contributions that canbe harnessed to achieve policy goals.Citizens can be unobtrusively andintelligently helped to make optimalchoices supporting both their individualwell-being as well as group well-beingpolicy goals. In addition to this, a numberof technological, economic, societal,political and environmental trends anddevelopments affect all countries as well asmost policy domains. In order to deal withthe challenges associated to thesedevelopments a new culture of future-oriented thinking is needed [Havas et al,2010]. Our claim is thus that combiningforesight and ICT-enabled modellingtechniques in support of governance andpolicy-making may be useful to improvepolicy intelligence. More specifically,embeddingforesightmethodologiesin policymodelling techniques may lead us to a newgeneration of policy making, so to avoidthe often shortsighted and piecemealapproach of current decision-making thatis usually incremental and step-by-step, anddoes not pay sufficient attention tochanges intheenvironmentandcross-policydimensions.1.2 ICTforGovernanceandPolicyModelling:a possible solution?Given the significance of globalisation,increasing technological and organizationalchanges as well as the even increasingimportance of learning capabilities andapplications of knowledge, our futurecannot be predicted by any sophisticatedmodel in a sufficient and reliable way[Havas et al, 2010]. As for policy-makingitself, there is a widening gap between thespeed, complexity and uncertainty oftechnological and socio-economicchanges, on the one hand, and the abilityto devise appropriate policies, on the other.Even the credibility of science is somewhatfading. Scientific research no longer standsfor true in itself and the objectiveness ofpolicies based on models is questioned asscientists and modellers themselves areknown to have different opinions andmodels often come to different conclusionson the same issues.Within this evolving context, the EuropeanCommission launched in 2009 a new areaof research on ICT for governance andpolicy modelling. According to theEuropean Commission’s 7th FrameworkProgramme (Work Programme ICT 2009-2010) [European Commission, DG Research,2009a], ICT for governance and policymodelling joins two complementaryresearch fields, which have traditionallybeen separate: the governance andparticipation toolbox which includestechnologies such as mass conversationand collaboration tools; and the policymodelling domain which includesforecasting, agent-based modelling,simulation and visualisation.These ICT toolsfor governance and policy modelling aimto improve public decision-making in acomplex age, enable policy-making andgovernance to become more effective andmore intelligent, and accelerate thelearning path embedded in the overallpolicy cycle [European Commission, DGINFSO – 2008a].Within this framework, in 2010 theEuropean Commission funded a SupportAction to design the Future ResearchRoadmap on this domain: CROSSROAD -AParticipative Roadmap for ICT research onElectronic Governance and PolicyModelling, aiming at defining a sharedvision, able to inspire collaborative,interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholdersresearch. CROSSROAD in fact links verydiverse research disciplines withpractitioners views and policy makers’concerns, through a multi-stakeholder andparticipatory approach and provides anuseful tool for the support and orientationof future policy-making.Overall, the CROSSROAD research roadmapaims to push to new outreach options theboundaries of traditional eGovernmentresearch and help resolve the complexsocietal challenges Europe is facing byapplying ICT-enabled innovations andcollaborative policy modelling approaches,which include the harnessing of collectiveintelligence, agent-based modelling, visualanalytics and simulation, just to mention afew [CROSSROAD, 2010a, b]. In this context,CROSSROAD aimed at building aconsensus-driven Research Roadmap toconsolidate and advance research in a new,yet highly fragmented, domain and toprovide strategic directions for the future ofresearch in ICT for governance and policymodelling. The main goal of theCROSSROAD project has been to drive theidentification of emerging technologies,new governance models and novelapplication scenarios in the field ofgovernance and policy modelling, leadingto the structuring of a beyond the state-of-the-art research agenda, fully embraced byresearch and practice communities. Insummary, CROSSROAD identified andcharacterized the key research challenges1. Simon introduced the concept of ‘bounded rationality’,arguing that many times we do not search for optimalsolutions but are content with satisfying ones given theboundaries we face. Such a boundary is lack of perfectinformation coupled with the incapacity to fully processthe information we possess (“a wealth of informationproduces a scarcity of attention”).2. More recently these insights have been furtherdeveloped in the brilliant work of behavioural economistsand economic psychologists (see for example, Bardsley,2010;Kaheman,1999and2003;Plous,1993;andSmith,2008)3. Regulation can forbid certain behaviours, such assmoking in public places. Financial incentives can alterthe behaviour of individuals, by making more costly thedysfunctional ones (i.e. through taxes). Financialincentives are used when market price does not reflectpositive or negative externalities: for example, high taxeson fuel and cigarettes are designed to reflect theirnegative social externalities for health and environment.
  11. 11. 01/2013myForesight®9experts’ insightsin the field of ICT for governance and policymodellingandultimatelyoutlinedaconcrete,participative roadmap for future research.2 ConceptualandMethodologicalFramework2.1 Conceptual frame and ObjectivesThe reasons for developing forward-looking analysis to support policy decisionsstem primarily from the emergence ofimportant science and technologyapplications and their wider implications forsociety. Science and technology interactwith society in a complex way and theireffects are often neither immediate nordirect, but of second or third order andoccur after a substantial time delay [EC, JRC-IPTS, ESTO, 2001]. More specifically,technological developments in the domainof governance and policy modellinghappen at a fast pace. Policy-makers cannotafford to wait until situations are clarifiedand until the effects are evident before theytake decisions. Though tomorrowsdevelopments are uncertain they originatein conditions established today. Hence,there is an important need for policy-makers to scope the impacts of science andtechnology and how they may develop [DaCosta et al. 2003].The history of forward-looking analysis andfuture studies spans decades [EC-JRC-IPTS,FOREN, 2001] and three main areas offuture-oriented technology analysis can beidentified [Cahill and Scapolo, 1999]:technology forecasting analyses theconditions and potential of technologicaldevelopment within a concrete framework;technology assessment supports decision-making by generating technology orproblem-specific options arising from newdevelopments; and technology foresightaddresses the impacts of technologicaldevelopment on a broader scale. Howeveruseful these methods may be, the growingknowledge-intensity, the pace oftechnological and societal change and theincreasingly distributed and networkedcharacter of the economy and ofgovernance processes cannot be exploredusing only technology-oriented futurestudies [Compano and Pascu, 2005]. Amore comprehensive approach is required.Designing scenarios relies on foresightmethods, which are based on a muchbroader concept than technologyassessment and forecasting. It calls upon awide range of themes and stakeholderperspectives, in order to examine the socialand economic aspects of futuretechnological developments. The processis interactive, open-ended and bottom-upand paves the way to identifying possiblebreakthroughs and exploring implicationsand hypotheses that will support thedefinition of strategic directions and policy-relateddecision-making[EC-JRC-IPTS,2003c].The objective of this paper is therefore topresent and discuss the main findings ofthe scenarios for Digital Europe 2030designed by IPTS as part of theCROSSROADs project and based on aforesight exercise which included: 1) ananalysis of the key areas of expectedchange in the domain of ICT-enabledgovernance and policy making to beplaced in the context of various differentfuture scenarios, and 2) envisioning, foreach scenario, the risks and opportunitiesoffered by ICT tools for governance andpolicy modelling techniques, as regardstheir contribution to overall EU policy goals.Based on these findings, aimed to explorepossible alternative futures in governanceand policy making, the paper elaboratesfurther exploring new research frontiersembedding foresight methodologies in thefutureexpectedmainstreamingofparticipatoryICT tools and policy modelling techniques.2.2 Methodological approachThis paper is partly based on the results ofthe research carried out by CROSSROAD, anFP7 Support Action to design the FutureResearch Roadmap in the domain of ICT forgovernance and policy modelling. ThisAction aimed to provide strategic directionsand define a shared vision, able to inspirecollaborative, interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. In this context, aparticipatory foresight exercise has beenconducted outlining a set of scenarios onhow governance and policy modelling,supported and enhanced by the use of ICT,could develop by 2030 in order to identifythe research needs and policy challengesto be addressed. To design such scenarios,an analysis of future needs, risks andopportunities under different conditionswas conducted based on the current stateoftheartofthedomain[CROSSROAD,2010a].The scenario design exercise resulted infour different scenarios which explore howgovernance and policy making coulddevelop by 2030. The scenarios weredeveloped by means of narration(storytelling) of possible future outcomes inselected key domains of European societywhere the development of ICT tools forgovernance and policy modellingtechniques are likely to have a majorimpact. By looking at the future of ICT-enabled governance through four thought-provoking visionary scenarios, the researchhelps policymakers to foresee whatEuropean society could become twentyyears from now, thanks to advances in ICTfor governance and policy modelling. Thescenarios, their formulation andinterpretation, expose the gaps that existtoday in research and what needs to beaddressedinordertoenablebettergovernanceand construct a more open, innovative andinclusive digital Europe tomorrow.Scenarios in fact are systematic visions offuture possibilities. In foresight research, thisusually means plausible possibilities that donot rely on extreme wild cards. [Miles, 2003].They are used as tools for political orstrategic decision making and to explorethe future impact of particular decisions ordevelopments [Janseen et al, 2007]. Morespecifically, Scenario building aims toidentify uncertain developments in thefuture and include them as elements of thescenario narrative [Janseen et al, 2007].However, this exercise’s time horizon (i.e.2030) and the interrelationships betweendifferent developments affecting it (e.g.rapid developments in specific domains ofICT) make the future of this research areadynamic, complex and uncertain, with littleavailable evidence that can be used topredict or forecast these futures. Thereforethe method of scenario design has beenused for this exercise and it followed acommon 5-step methodology: 1) a trendanalysis to determine the developmentsthat could be key drivers for the future ofICT tools for governance and policymodelling techniques, 2) the selection ofthe scenarios by determining the mainimpact dimensions and key uncertainties,3) writing of the scenarios, 4), identificationof the implications of the scenarios byparticipants at the Experts Workshop andby consulting the public and 5) derivingconclusionsforpolicyimplicationsandresearchchallenges [EC, JRC-IPTS, FOR-LEARN,2010].Withregardtothemethodologicalapproachinforming the scenarios design exercise, itmust be underlined that foresight researchcomprises many different methods thatcan be categorised in several ways.According to Popper [Popper, 2008], thesemethods can be: expert-based, creativity-It is now recognisedthat onlinecollaborationshave the potential totrigger and shapesignificant changesin the way futuresocieties will function
  12. 12. 01/2013 myForesight®10based, interaction-based or evidence-based.The objectives of a foresight exerciseand the degree of uncertainty andcomplexity involved guide the selection ofmethodsforaparticularexercise.The Scenario Design adopted as part of theCROSSROADs foresight exercise is: 1)evidence-based, as it builds on the trendsemerging from a policy review and trendsanalysis and the assessment of the state-of-the-art of research in ICT for governanceand policy modelling; 2) expertise-based,as it includes the views of experts gatheredthrough a call for expert contributions andfurther discussion held during an ExpertWorkshop to validate the scenario designframework; 3) interactive, as it incorporatesthe inputs from the Expert Workshop andfrom online public consultation; and 4)creative, as it is based on the creative-thinking that came out of a series ofbrainstorming activities by members of theIPTS lead team and other experts.In this paper we attempt to go furtherexploring how combining foresight andmodelling techniques in a dynamic andparticipatory manner may enhance policyintelligence capabilities and thus lead to abetter policy making process. Foresight infact can help in picking up weak signals:weak but very important hints that afundamental re-assessment and re-alignment of current policies based ontraditional models are needed. In otherwords, our hypothesis is that embeddingforesight techniques in structuredmodelling platforms may serve as a crucialpart of an early warning system, and it canbe used as an instrument for developingpolicy intelligence mechanisms. Infurtherance to this, participative,transparent, forward-looking methods maybe instrumental to support policy-makersin finding solutions for complex societalchallenges that cannot be addressed bytraditional policy recipes and models basedon evidence from the past. A dynamiccomponent is needed to be introduced inmodelling policies so to take intoconsideration appropriate changes andtrends developments, as well as inputs fromall interested stakeholders that wouldguarantee effective policy implementation.3 Results and Policy implications3.1 The impact of foresight on ICT forgovernance and policy modellingThe scenario design developed as part ofthe CROSSROADs research aims to providea structured framework for analysis ofcurrent and future challenges related toresearchonICTtoolsforgovernanceandpolicymodellingtechniques[CROSSROAD,2010b].The scenario framework proposed waschosen to stimulate further debate andreflection on possible, radical alternativescenarios and is, of course, one of severalpossible alternatives. It takes todays worldand constructs images of possible futureworlds, highlighting ways in which keyuncertainties could develop. The aim is topresent clues and key impact dimensions,thus increasing the ability to foreseepossible development paths for theapplication of ICT tools for governance andpolicy modelling techniques.Thus risks canbe anticipated and better preparation canbe made to take advantage of futureopportunities. In turn, this outlines keyelements to be taken into consideration forthe further roadmapping and impactassessmentoffutureresearchinthisdomain.Instead of attempting to forecast severalfuture ICT-enabled scenarios, it was chosento define four internally consistent – butradical– views of what the future EuropeanInformation Society might look like in 2030.These give four distinctly different views ofwhat Europe’s governance and policymaking system could be and what theimplications of each could be for citizens,business and public services.The pace at which the elements of thevisions unfold will, however, be influencedby the speed of change of the overalltechnological landscape and societalcontext. Considering the unprecedentedgrowth and speed of ICT uptake in severalresearch themes and the rapid emergenceof technologies which enable applicationsfor ICT for governance and policy making(e.g. social computing, mobile technologies,pervasive computing, etc.), we can arguethat the world in 2030 will be radicallydifferent from the world we live in today.Following the mapping and analysis of thestate of the art in the research themesrelated to ICT for governance and policymodelling and the identification ofemerging trends, the main impacts onfuture research in this area were defined.These were further refined through ananalysis of existing scenario exercises andthe current shaping of policies andstrategies for the development of theEuropean Information Society. They werethen used to develop the visionaryscenarios framework to depict possiblestate of the future Digital Europe.The uncertainties underlying the scenariodesign are: 1) the societal value system wewill be living in (more inclusive, open andtransparent or exclusive, fractured andrestrictive), and 2) the response (partial orcomplete, proactive or reactive) to theacquisition and integration of policyintelligence techniques in support of dataprocessing, modelling, visualization andsimulationforevidence-basedpolicymaking.experts’ insights
  13. 13. 01/2013myForesight®11Accordingly, the key impact dimensionswere classified on two axes: Degree ofOpenness and Transparency (Axis Y) andDegree of Integration in Policy Intelligence(Axis X) and they go from the extreme 0(Low Openness andTransparency and LowIntegration in Policy Intelligence to 1 (HighOpenness and Transparency and HighIntegration in Policy Intelligence). The axesrepresent ways in which social and policytrends could develop. Based on thisframework scenarios were then developedin a narrative manner (i.e. storytelling style)as descriptions of possible outcomes inselected key areas, representative of theEuropean context, where emerging trendsrelated to the development of ICT tools forgovernance and policy modellingtechniques could have an impact. Thescenarios for the future of governance andpolicy making of Digital Europe 2030 arepresented in Figure 1.The vertical axis indicates the degree ofopenness and transparency in a society, interms of democratic and collaborativegovernance that could be further enabledby ICTs. The most open and transparentsociety would be one where eventraditional state functions are completelyreplaced by non-state actors, throughopening-up and linking public sectorinformation for re-use. Such a society wouldbe characterized by open standards andprinciplesoftransparencyandaccountabilityin governance and public management[Misuraca, 2009b].The openness paradigm is also expected toapplytotheresearchandbusinesscommunitywhich could benefit from open innovationandsocial/businessnetworksofcollaboration,where users are co-creators of productsand services delivered globally via peer-to-peer social networks based on reputationand trust [EC-JRC-IPTS, 2009a]. Animportant aspect will be the regulatory andtechnological solutions, and also the socio-cultural attitudes to the basic digital rightsunderpinning the future InformationSociety. In fact, the concept of openness isnotstrictlyrelatedtotechnologicalsolutions,butrathertosocio-culturalandorganisationalaspectsthatcanbeenabledandsupportedbytechnologicaladvancement[Misuraca,2009a].The horizontal axis concerns Integration inPolicy Intelligence, i.e. the degree ofintegration of data and knowledge and wayin which collaboration between allstakeholders in policy-design and decision-making mechanisms is enabled. Thisinvolves the possibility (enabled by ICTs) tomash-up data and information availablefrom different sources in an intelligent way(meaning efficient, effective and able togenerate public value). It also involves theextent to which users, individually or asmembers of formal and informal socialnetworks, can contribute to the co-designof policies, simulating and visualizing theeffects of legal and policy decisions, andengage in real-time monitoring and priorassessment of possible expected impactsat local, regional, national and pan-European scale. This axis is also associatedwith the capacity and willingness of policyactors to share power and change decision-making mechanisms in order to facilitatethe redefinition of basic democraticfreedoms in a collaborative fashion. Thiscould go to the extreme of redesigning thetraditional mission of the State and the roleplayed by governance stakeholders. Again,ICTs are not the driving force; rather changeis driven by changes in social values,attitudes and new paradigm shifts in termsof information management, knowledgesharing (experts vs. non expert networks,for example) and allocation of resources[Rossel, Glassey and Misuraca, 2009].In all the scenarios, the world in 2030 isexpected to be radically different fromtodays, due to the unprecedented growthand speed of ICT uptake in several fieldsand the related impact ICT tools whichenable governance and policy modellingtechniques may have. Moreover, theinfluences and drivers of innovation andrenewal in the public sector, combinedwith increased financial pressure on stateswillresultnotonlyinchange,butwillalsoaffectthepaceatwhichthestateadaptstothenewenvironment,toitsnewrolesandtoincreasedengagement with stakeholders and users.However, whichever scenario dominates inthefuture,inthecomingyears,conventionalwisdom and familiar governance modelswill be challenged as ICT-based disruptionsimpinge on democratic, consultative andpolicy-making processes. Evidence alreadygathered anticipates that the scope andscale of transformation will have a majorimpact on society [Broster, 2007]. Since2005 there has been a phenomenalgrowth in mass, on-line collaborativeapplications, which has captured theimagination and creative potential ofmillions of participants - particularly theyounger generations. In addition to newforms of leisure pursuits, community-building activities have also entered thepolitical arena as witnessed in a number ofrecent national elections [EC, JRC-IPTS,2009a, 2009c, 2009d].Onlinecommunitiescanleverageconsiderablehuman knowledge and expertise andrapidly build their capacity. At the sameFigure 1 Scenarios for Digital Europe 2030experts’ insightsPre-treatmentOpenGovernanceSelf-ServiceGovernanceLow Integrated Policy IntelligenceHigh Openness & Transparency: Extreme 1Low Openness & Transparency: Extreme 0High Integrated Policy IntelligenceExtreme 0 Extreme 1LeviathanGovernancePrivatisedGovernance
  14. 14. 01/2013 myForesight®12time, it is now recognised that onlinecollaborations have the potential to triggerand shape significant changes in the wayfuture societies will function. Extrapolationof the present exponential growth leads toscenarios where a very large percentage ofthe population could, if equipped with theappropriate ICT tools and capacities,simultaneously voice opinions and views onmajor and minor societal challenges[Tapscott andWilliams, 2006]. Hence, thesetools herald the transition to a different formofdynamicallyparticipativegovernancemodels.While such scenarios are readily imaginable,we also recognise that we currently do nothave appropriate governance models,process flows, or analytical tools with whichto properly understand, interpret, visualiseand harness the forces that could beunleashed. Present government processes(local, regional, national and EU level)provide laws and regulations, interpret anddefine societal norms and deliver societalsupport services.Their legitimacy is derivedthrough democratic processes combinedwith a requirement for transparency andaccountability. In a world that is increasinglyusing non-physical communication andborderless interaction, the traditional rolesandresponsibilities of public administrationswill be subject to considerable change andclassical boundaries between citizens andtheir governments will become increasinglyblurred [Pew Internet, 2010b]. The balanceof power between governments, societalactors and the population will have toadapt to these challenging new possibilities.A key issue will therefore be to develop andapply advanced ICT tools to provide robustsupport to the change process andfacilitate the transition to a new digitally-derived legitimacy. Inherent in this processis the definition and realisation of new,carefully crafted governance models. By2030, there will no longer be any barrierswhich prevent citizens and businesses fromparticipating in decision making at all levels,and hence the present democratic deficitwill be overcome.Advanced tools – possibly building ongaming and virtual reality technologies -will enable citizens to track the totality ofdecision making processes and see howtheir contributions have been (or are being)taken into account. Current linguistic andcultural barriers will have been largelyovercome through use of semantic-basedcooperation platforms [Broster, 2007].Opinion mining, visualisation and modellinginto virtual reality-based outcomes andscenarios will help to both shape, guideand form public opinion.These ICT-enabledprocesses and tools will have todemonstrate transparency, earn people’strust and be devoid of manipulation. Theoutcomes of such consultative processesshould be faster and more efficient policyrevision and decision making.By 2030, it is expected that transparencyand trust in governance processes andpolicy making will characterise a changedrelationship between governments,businesses and citizens. Governmentstraditionally collect, process and storesignificant quantities of data. In the future,the relationships will change andbusinesses and citizens will be in a positionto authorise access by governments todata spaces of their own data which theycontrol and update. Such a scenario wouldresult in a private shared space jointlyaccessed by data users and data providers[Reutter, 2008]. Equivalent data spaces willbe adopted by businesses. These sharedspaces will require extremely robust accessrules and procedures and hence newtechnologies and ICT tools that ensureprivacy and data protection. Trust in suchtechnologies will need to be earned [EC,DG-INFSO, 2009].In most organizations, information travelsalongfamiliarroutes.Proprietaryinformationis lodged in databases and analyzed inreports and then rises up the managementchain. Information also originatesexternally: gathered from public sources,harvested from the Internet, or purchasedfrom information suppliers. But thepredictable pathways of information arechanging: the physical world itself isbecoming a type of information system[EC-JRC-IPTS, 2003b]. In addition to this,more objects are becoming embeddedwith sensors and gaining the ability tocommunicate. The resulting informationnetworks promise to create newopportunities, improve governanceprocesses, and reduce the costs and risks ofpolicy decisions. In what is called theInternet of Things, sensors and actuatorsembedded in physical objects -fromroadways to pacemakers- are linkedthrough wired and wireless networks, oftenusing the same Internet Protocol (IP) thatconnects the Internet. These networkschurn out huge volumes of data that flowto computers for analysis.When objects canboth sense the environment andcommunicate, they become tools forunderstanding complexity and respondingto it swiftly. What is revolutionary in all thisis that these physical information systemsare now beginning to be deployed, andsome of them even work largely withouthuman intervention [EC, 2009e].The widespread adoption of the Internet ofThings will take time, but the time line isadvancing thanks to improvements inunderlying technologies. Advances inwireless networking technology and thegreater standardization of communicationsprotocols make it possible to collect datafrom these sensors almost anywhere, anytime. Ever smaller silicon chips for thispurpose are gaining new capabilities, whilecosts, following the pattern of Moore’s Law,are falling. Massive increases in storage andcomputing power, some of it available viacloud computing, make number crunchingpossible on a very large scale and atdecreasing cost [Chui et al., 2010].Research in the area of the Internet ofThings is now strictly linked to advances inthe field of Ubiquitous Networks andpervasive computing. Future applicationsare opening up huge opportunities forprivate and public sector organizationsalike. Despite the fact that many of thetechnologies which underpin the futureInternet infrastructure are not new (e.g.Radio Frequency Identification, sensornetworks, GRPRS, UMTS-HSDPA and NearField Communication, to mention a few),the conditions for their application mayresult in innovative and disruptive usageson a daily basis in forthcoming years [PewInternet, 2010a]. This innovation couldsupport several public policies, such aslogistics, security, transport, environmentand energy, education and health, andmanyothers[Medaglia,Chicca,Orlando,2010].3.2 Implications of integrated foresight andmodelling in support of governanceand policy makingThe scenarios developed as part ofCROSSROAD served as an input to becompared with the integrated analysis ofthe state of the art in the domain of ICT forgovernance and policy modelling and,based on this comparison, a gap analysishasbeenconductedtoidentifyanexhaustivelist of specific gaps, where the on-goingexperts’ insightsAdvances in wirelessnetworking technologyand the greaterstandardization ofcommunicationsprotocols make itpossible tocollect data from thesesensors almostanywhere, any time.
  15. 15. 01/2013myForesight®13research activities are not going to meetthe long-term needs outlined by the futurescenarios. This exercise resulted in asubstantial contribution to shaping theroadmapping of future research in thedomain thus proving to be useful andneeded. Through a participatory foresightprocesses it was possible to bring togethernot only experts and interested partiesfrom academia and research, industry andgovernment, but also involve directlypolicy-makers and other interestedstakeholders. The documents produced infact were made available online forcomments and feedback and received ageneral appreciation during discussions atspecific workshops and conferences.This also demonstrated that with such anopen and participatory approach in mind,itisnowincreasinglybeingrecognisedthatanopening of the political process is requiredto ensure robustness and effectiveness ofits outcomes. In recent years in fact we haveassisted to a shift in policy making practicesfrom shaping framework conditions andstructural settings towards strategicdecision making. However, the growingcomplexity of governance and policymaking processes is also recognised.A shift towards evidence-based / model-based policy making is happening, but thisis sometime not supported by effectiveempirical data and conceptually soundunderstanding of the societal implicationsof modelling techniques per-se. As a matterof fact, this shift in policy-making is alsoreflected in the evolving practices andinterest in modelling techniques worldwideand in the EU in particular (see for examplethe Climate Change debate or Energy andTransport policy developments). However,in spite of its apparent success, initialenthusiasm is already given way to asignificant deal of scepticism, both fromtraditional modellers and non-experts,including policy-makers themselves.More recently, and this is consistent with theresults of the CROSSROAD roadmappingexercise, as well as the policy direction theEU is focusing on, it has been recognisedthat the effectiveness of policy dependsalso on the involvement of a broader rangeof stakeholders than those formally incharge of policy decisions.This concept of distributed policy-makingand intelligence originally set out by[Kuhlman, 2001] is de facto at the core ofthe foresight and roadmapping exerciseunderpinning CROSSROAD, where it isassumed that openness of governancesystems and integration of policyintelligence can harness collectiveintelligence, building on the knowledge,experience, and competence of variousactors. Applying this network perspectiveto a distributed platform based on ICT-enabled policy modelling and integratedforesighttechniques(appropriatelysupportedby participative and user-friendly simulationand visualisation tools), may prove to beinstrumental to further implement policiesand achieve socio-economic impacts,generating a cascade of public and privatedecision-making on societys course ofchange and affecting the interactions thatprecede formal policy-making processes.In addition to this, behavioural change mayalso be stimulated as participating in thegovernance and policy making processmay also enhance effectiveness of policyimplementation from individual usersandstakeholdersotherthanthegovernment.The roleofgovernmentinfactisshiftingfrombeing a central steering entity to that of amoderator of collective decision-makingprocesses.However, in order to perform this roleeffectively, all stakeholders should be ableto contribute to the policy directionscommonly agreed, and governments needto be capable of setting up a sharedplatform for policy intelligence, whereforesight and modelling techniques –ifactually supported by ICT- can be crucial forimproving governance and policy makingprocesses.4 Conclusions4.1 Policy challenges and possible solutionsThe scenarios developed aimed to definehow the advancement of ICT tools forgovernance and the integration of policymodelling techniques could affectgovernance and policy making twentyyears from now, so as to identify whatresearch is needed and which policiesshould be promoted. Indeed, challenges inthe emerging domain of ICT forgovernance and policy modelling are hugeand complex and cannot be dealt with inisolation. In this regard, there is also a strictrelationship with the broader task ofenvisioning and developing the FutureInternet. The Internet was not originallydesigned to serve massive scaleapplications with guaranteed quality ofservice and security [Zittrain, 2008].Emerging technologies like streaming highquality video and running 3D applications,or, in our specific domain, applications thatenable mass collaboration, data processing,simulation and visualization throughcomplex modelling, face severe constraintsas regards running seamlessly anytime,anywhere, with good quality services.European scientists have proved they are atthe forefront of ICT research since theinvention of the web and throughout therapid technological developments of thelast 20 years [EC ISTAG, 2009]. It is now timeto bring together different researchdisciplines that could help us benefit fromthe opportunities of ICT for bettergovernance and policy making, and at thesame time overcome the possible risks tosociety of mainstreaming large scaleapplications in this domain. Additionally,and from a technological infrastructureperspective, we should remember that thecurrent Internet, as a ubiquitous anduniversal means for communication andcomputation, despite being extraordinarilysuccessful so far, has a series of inherentunresolved problems. It is expected that itwill soon reach its limits as regards botharchitectural capability and capacity [EC,2009e]. However, the future developmentof Internet infrastructure will be supportedby complementary advancements intechnological applications that are nowexperts’ insights
  16. 16. consolidated trends and expected to groweven faster. The groundwork in place foryears now should yield innovation in thenear future [Pew Internet, 2010a]. Morepowerful devices, even cheaper netbooks,virtualization and cloud computing(including portable solutions), reputationsystems for social networking and masscollaboration tools, as well as theproliferation of sensors, reporting anddecision-support systems, do-it-yourselfembedded systems, robots, sophisticatedalgorithms for processing data andperforming statistical simulation andanalysis, visualization tools to report resultsof these analysis, affective technologies,personalized and location-aware services,facial and voice recognition systems,electronic paper, anomaly-based securitymonitoring, self-heating systems andothers are expected to become reality andmainstream in the next 10-20 years.But far more important than networkrequirementsandtechnologicalapplicationsis the consideration of socio-economicaspects in the development of future ICTtools for governance and policy modellingtechniques. Socio-economics as a multi-disciplinary field, which cuts across allresearch areas [EC DG Research, 2009b] oftheICTforgovernanceandpolicymodellingdomain, has manifold research challenges.Suitable governance and policy-makingmechanisms, which provide appropriateincentives for participation, but at the sametime ensure security and avoid risks (ofenlarging digital exclusion, for example),need to be designed.Moreover, legal and regulatory issues suchas digital rights, privacy and dataprotection, also have to be taken intoconsideration, as the demand for theestablishment of trust in governance mayincrease (or shift) as its usage scenarioschange [Hildebrandt, 2009]. For example,an ever-increasing openness of ICT-enabled governance and policy modellingmechanisms, and the criticality and valueof the transactions conducted over theopen platform used for this purpose, maycreate incentives for malicious use of dataand information. While securitytechnologies will be developed to addressthe technological challenges linked to this,additional risks to trust arise, mainly due toits potential pervasiveness, large scale andinvolvement of users. The challengesinclude, for instance, the design of identitymanagement systems capable of dealingwith billions of entities, and their differentroles in the governance sphere, thetrustworthiness and control of distributedapplications based on services offeredthrough open service delivery platforms,and the secure and trusted interaction withreal-world objects and entities throughsensors and actuator networkinfrastructures [Pew Internet, 2010a]. Morespecifically, for example, the emergence ofwireless networks could allow softwareapplications and physical objects to beconnected, opening up a wide range ofstimulating new application scenarios ingovernance and policy making [Feijoo et al,2009; Jaokar and Gatti, 2009]. At the sametime, however, the same opennessunderpinning their mass-development andusage will expose sensor networks andrelated information and content to possibleattack and misuse.The opportunities provided by future ICTtools for governance and policy modellingfor individuals, businesses and governmentsare huge but they will only be taken ifappropriate conditions and governancemodels are developed. In fact, it isexpected that ICT tools for governance andpolicy modelling techniques will forcechange in institutions, no matter howresistant they are. And even if it could bepredicted that governments that redefinetheir relationship with their stakeholderswill be the ones to succeed, the market willstill drive that process in the commercialdomain, and tensions may emerge asstakeholders know more and more aboutthe organizations that are trying to servethem [Pew Internet, 2010b].At the same time, it seems that increasingdemand from the scientific and businesscommunity, and from civil societyorganizations and citizens groups, will drivethe emergence of experimentally-drivenresearch, to address broad governance andpolicy-making challenges, developing andapplyingICTtoolsandapplicationstoexploitthe full value of the mass collaboration andopenandparticipatoryparadigmunderpinningthe future technological developments andgovernance directions in Europe. Thiswould eventually allow the testing of newICT-based solutions and models forcollaborative governance and participatorypolicy modelling, and socio-economicimpact assessment of future societalchanges. This last issue entails building onthe momentum that the domain of ICT forgovernance and policy modelling hasrecently gained, by further developing theresearch community.In order to bridge the gap between variousstakeholders and long-term research andlarge-scale experimentation, enablingcross-fertilization across different scientificdisciplines and integration of resources,special emphasis should be put onfostering common research results.This willcreate value for the EU, avoidingfragmentation of research efforts and itshould also include the experiences gainedat the international level. This requiresdeveloping a joint strategic researchagenda, on ICT for governance and policymaking to support the building of an open,innovativeandinclusiveDigitalEurope2030.The effectivenessof policy depends onthe involvement ofa broader rangeof stakeholders thanthose formally incharge of policydecisions.01/2013 myForesight®14experts’ insights
  17. 17. 01/2013myForesight®154.2 FutureResearchandnextfrontiersMost remarkable and perhaps notcomparable with the development of theInternet in its first evolution (what can bedefined as the Web1.0) is also theexponential growth of the new generationofWeb2.0 applications, both in terms of thenumber of applications and number ofusers. Remarkable too is the lightningspeed with which the trend spread. It tookbarely three years to social computing togrow from a marginal community andbecome the dominant Internet trendwhich it is today.The fast growth and massive uptake ofWeb2.0 services are at the origin of a deepersocio-economic impact, the signs of whichare however not clear yet. In fact, despitethe rise of Web2.0 applications and its fastgrowth and pervasiveness, it is still quitedifficult to capture the phenomenon andmeasureitorevenjustbuildinganempiricallysound case for assessing specific impactsand its potential policy-relevance. Evidenceof impacts of Web2.0 on our society islargely anecdotal and in most cases notsystematically gathered and analyzed.Existing metrics are not able to make senseof the transformations enabled by theseemerging technologies as the changesthey convey seem to be more behaviouraland cultural than primarily ICT-driven. As amatter of fact, we are already witnessingseveral changes in our daily lives, and inpersonal and professional attitudes,especially if we look at the way the youngpeople integrate their digital and realselves, or at how social networks and user-generated content is used and consumed(ifnotabused)(Misuraca,2011forthcoming).In foresight terms, the momentum that hascharacterised the Web2.0 phenomenon isexpected to continue, to further evolve andto mature. The driving forces and addedvalues of it in fact reside in the practices(the values of social engagement) ratherthan in specific technologies and theirsheer corresponding numbers. In thecoming decade, Internet access andnetwork bandwidths will continue toincrease, and the Web, either as we know ittoday, or in yet surprising evolutions, willundoubtedly continue contribute to thedevelopment of the Information Society,shaping new form of user participations.In this regard, the measurement/modellingissue becomes crucial, particularly in thecontext of informing evidence-basedpolicy decisions. The most urgent need iscertainly for new metrics to address theemergence of new social media, and ingeneral, for systematic measurements andinternationally comparable data. Thesewould enable better assessment of thelong-term importance of Web 2.0 trends interms of their socio-economic impact, andthe quantitative and qualitative differencesbetween countries across the world. This isespecially necessary in order to bridge thegap between the wealth of "marketing-type" data and the lack of official statistics,which occurs for every new socio-techno-economictrend,especiallyinthefast-evolvingICT landscape (Misuraca 2011 forthcoming).At the same time, despite not yet supportedby consolidated evidence, it seems that themost promising user-enabling ICTapplications are emerging in the area ofmass-collaboration for governance andpolicy-making, where mobilisation ofpolitics and civic engagement is already insome cases producing a shift in the powerbalance between the "crowd" and politicalrepresentatives. Moreover, web2.0applicationsandvaluescansupportgatheringcollective intelligence of citizens andframing public opinion formation onspecific policy-relevant issues in a structuredmanner so as to harness evidence-basedpolicy-making and improve quality ofregulatory and policy frameworks.However, while ICT-supported modellingtechniques are largely available to supportimpact analysis in specific policy areas, theyoften remain stand-alone models built inisolation and as black-boxes. They cancontribute to respond to focusedeconomic and techno-economic questions(e.g. impact of regulations on specificenergy emissions or transport modeshifting) but cannot provide acomprehensive analysis of complex cross-sectoral issues that would affect the overallsociety (CROSSROAD, 2010).In this regard, attempts to develop moresophisticated and integrated ICT-enabledmodels able to capture the variousvariables and consequences affectingsocietal changes are underway4. However,in both the Web2.0 realm and more ingeneral the ICT for governance and policymodelling domain, it should be consideredthat the quality of input that can begathered from users through user-enablingtechnologies (e.g. social computing, mobiletechnologies, sensors, etc.) is highlyvariable, and filtering this content is still verymuch a resource intensive task. One keychallenge is therefore to make sense ofgigantic quantities of qualitative data, suchas entailing mass conversations. In otherwords, the goal is to look at ways toimprove signal-to-noise ratio, through avariety of means, with different human-computer balance, through tools such assense-making, reputation managementand collaborative filtering. In addition, visualanalytics and simulations techniques (forexample using virtual worlds or seriousgaming) can help domesticate andgeneralise results of modelling techniquesto the wider public (CROSSROAD, 2010).In conclusion, our assumption is that ascurrent modelling techniques are not reallyadequate to predict, monitor and evaluatepolicy developments and their impacts onsociety, a new policy-measurementparadigm is required [Misuraca and Rossel,2011, forthcoming]. As a consequence ofwhat precedes, and broadly of our ownresearch journey, we need to emphasizethe relative absence of a meta-level ofanalysis, a reflexive layer where not only wewould model, but also measure and modelhow we measure and model and with whatimplications. This epistemic concern ismainly about modelling issues. Basically, wecould say that so far, obsessed with theneed to play along the success story-line ofmore ICT the more welfare, we havedownplayed the necessity to model ourobservations and discuss our modellingassumptions so as to improve them andmoregenerallygenerateaknowledgeprocess.experts’ insightsFar moreimportant thannetwork requirementsand technologicalapplications isthe consideration ofsocio-economicaspects in thedevelopment of futureICT tools forgovernance and policymodelling techniques.
  18. 18. 01/2013 myForesight®16This broad perspective could for examplebuild on the potential that gatheringcollective intelligence combined withadvanced ICT-enabled policy modellingtechniques. A shift is thus required, not onlyby enabling users to become livingsensors and providing data to be directlyfed into comprehensive models, but alsogiving the possibility to the same users(being they researchers, businesses, civilservants or citizens) to have direct access todata they need, and process them usingICT-enabled simulation and visualizationintelligentsystems (i.e. able to find meaningin confusion, independently of human-acquired knowledge). Ultimately this willnot only allow to have a bettermeasurement of policies (thus modellingandassessingtherealimplicationsofpolicies)but will also create new opportunities forpeople to interact with and influencegovernance and policy-making processesand make progress in solving societalproblems; and therefore start to establishthe target not only in the offer/use andtherefore empowering paradigm as it hasbeen profiled so far, but on more ambitiousimpacts and transformational options.While so far this has not been the focus ofresearch in the foresight field, we also arguethat it would be required to explore thisforesight-modelling couple so to bettergrasp the potential of ICT dynamics, andespecially user-enabling technologies formodelling and evaluating policy-options.This will also allow changing the perspectiveof the observer, thus gaining insightfulevidence and data directly from the users,and in real time, and more generallyspeaking of usefulness/relevance of theaccomplishments of ICT applications “insituation of use”, towards the great variety ofwaysofaddressingsmallandgrandchallenges.In this regard, as suggested by Piniewski, B.,Codagnone, C, and Osimo, D. (2011,forthcoming), it may also be worthexploring the popular and innovativeapproach to crowd management strategiespresented in the best selling book Nudge[Thaler, 2008]. In this book, the authorscontrast the stylized agents of classicaleconomics called Econs to more human-like agents called Humans.The Econ reliablyreacts using his reflective cognitive system,whereas the Human is frequently unreliablein his reaction secondary to an automaticcognitive system5. The fundamental gamechanger presented by Nudge is thattraditional simulation efforts that dependon Econs will under-perform dramaticallytoday as Human behaviours are significantcontributors to crowd outcomes. Folks willspend money every year paying for magazinesthat are not read only because they fail to payattentiontoanautomaticrenewalormalignantnudge. The authors claim that left to theirown devices, Humans unlikeEconswilloftencontinuetomakepoordecisionsaffectingtheirown wellbeing. Humans are especiallyvulnerable when mapping (view to thefuture) outcomes is delayed or unclear atleast for the moment. In this connection,linking foresight with modelling techniquesmay provide a better understanding of theissues at stake while also provide alternativepolicyoptionstoaddresssocietalchallenges.However, to effectively integrate foresightand policy modelling techniques it wouldbe required to develop a more refined orhigh definition understanding of sociallyembedded desires, tastes, preferences, andbehavioursofthepolicyrecipientstheywouldlike to affect. In addition, an understandingofhownetworksareborn,growanddevelopover time would be important. The effectsof policies do not occur in a vacuum. Theyoccur within a social network.Thus nudgingalone will not be sufficient. Nudging plusnetwork approaches raises challenges butalso creates tremendous opportunities forinnovative policy making [Omerod, 2010].In a system of interconnected agents,changes by a few agents may produce acascade of changes in many agents as theylearn from each other, copy each other, andseek each other’s acceptance. If thenetwork is scale-free (characterised by apower law) then changes enacted by thehubs can even more likely lead to a cascadeeffect6. Such cascade effects may drift apolicy into unknown or unexpecteddirections.Thus by understanding the basicstructure and flow of a network, a smallnudge can be applied to relevant hubs toexperts’ insightsTODAYpolicy irreleventscientific practice(ivory tower)TOMORROWParadigm shift:Collaborative,innovative, dataintensivepolicy-makingTODAYUntapped potentialof citizens ofgenerated data andinsightsTODAYReductionistpolicy-makinghitting hardwall of policyresistanceEVIDENCE USAGE IN POLICY MAKINGCOMPREHENSIVELIMITEDNO YESSCOPE/QUALITYOFEVIDENCEBASE4. See for example the FET InitiativeFuturICT and theEU FP7 projects in the domain of ICT for governanceand policy modelling An example of an Econ is Star Trek’s Mr. Spock whotypifies the always-in-control person. The Human maybe typified by Homer Simpson; who is a typical“yeah-whatever”person.To effectively integrateforesight and policymodelling techniques itwould be required todevelop a more refinedor high definitionunderstanding ofsocially embeddeddesires, tastes,preferences, andbehaviours of thepolicy recipients theywould like to affect.Figure 2 Evidence in policy making: today and tomorrow, Source: Piniewski, B., Codagnone, C,and Osimo, D. (2011, forthcoming)
  19. 19. 01/2013myForesight®17trial the cascade effect at a smaller scale.Once confident that desired policyoutcomes are reliably attained, a largernudge can be applied to the network withthe intention to scale effective policy. Thiscan be repeated in cycles enablingcontinuous improvement co-production ofeffective community strategies. Forinstance, integrating information fromclassicalsurveysinto agent-based modellingor other innovative ICT supportingmodelling and simulation tools, policymakers would have access to a reasonableunderstanding of a network structure7.However, for such a paradigmatic shift inpolicy making to happen, it would berequired that a policy intelligence platformenabling meaningful participation ofmultiple stakeholders will be realised.Citizens at large must have an effectivevoice to inform policy, to better understandchoices affecting their futures and to takepersonal ownership of the actions thataffect their daily life and futuredevelopments. This will provide anopportunity to vastly improve the evidencebase upon which the policy cycles depend(design, implementation, evaluation).Theoretically, a community of scientists andexperts would produce the mostcomprehensive and robust form ofevidence support for policy-makers.However, this insight may be delayed,difficult to use or not directly useful forspecific policies. In turn, citizen-generateddata may not be fully comprehensive (self-selected, biased, opinion) or robust (in needof filtering/ validation). Sensitive issues suchas security and privacy must also beaddressed. For these reasons, citizen-generated data are slow to enter the policymaking arena.The paradigm shift in policy modelling willoccur when the top right quadrant of thematrix characterizes the bulk of policyevidence activity. In a cycle of continuousimprovement, collaboration across thethree key groups of stakeholders (policy-makers, expert scientists and non-expertcitizens) will drive evidence-based policy.Together these stakeholders will supportinnovative data intensive policy action,capable of timely reaction and redirectionwithin networked systems.Insummary,ICTalonecannotsolveeverythingand can be even generate new problems.For the desired paradigm shift to occur,both institutional and cultural changes areneeded. Figure 3 is a visual summary of theelements needed for evidence-basedeffective policy making. The key elementsneeded for ICT to advance as a powerfulinstrument across the value chain of datacollection, data analysis, and support foraction have been identified by the FP7project CROSSROAD which reviewed alarge body of literature to generate aroadmap for ICT use in policy modelling8.The figure provides a synoptic visualisationof how various agents (policy makers,citizens, scientists and expert) share andcollaboratively use data through distributedcomputing. Inside the ICT tool box are toolsfor data analysis, data presentation, and forpersuasive feed-back. Together, allstakeholders are able to obtain answers totheir queries and collectively optimizepolicyto optimize citizen behaviours.Within this framework, it is clear that dataand information are a fundamental buildingblockuponwhichtheparadigm-shiftinpolicymodelling depends. However different datamay come in different formats and bedifficult to link correctly. More importantly,data about the future are not available, andeven the more sophisticated model will notallow to predict exactly what impactsspecific policies may have, due not only towild cards events, but especially becauseof the not rational neither linear evolutionof policy directions.Therefore, it is important to complementcurrent modelling approaches withparticipatory foresight techniques, allowingfor example the possibility to gather dataand opinions directly from users. In thismanner, strategic and critical informationcan be volunteered by users and thedramatic reduction in cost of consumerelectronics is increasingly making sensor-baseddeviceslessexpensiveandmorepopular.Such sensors enable both participatorysensing (requiring a minimum level ofefforts from users) and opportunisticsensing(nousereffortrequired,userstosimplycarryaroundsmartdevicesthatspontaneouslycollect and transmit relevant data). All ofthis can be integrated with the ambientdata collected by Internet of Things (IoT)sensors and other devices capturingimportant information (i.e. satellite images).This will allow developing innovative policyintelligence platforms that based onadvanced participation, new modellingand simulation techniques which will takeadvantage of applications pushing theboundaries of analytics and visualisationtechniques to help bridge the knowledgeasymmetry between the experts, the policymakersandthecitizen.Foresightwillbecomeacrucialcomponentastherealtimedynamicofsuchapolicyintelligenceplatformwillnotrely simply on data about past and presentfacts, but will provide the framework foralternativepolicyoptionsandrelatedimpacts,and thus possibly anticipating the future.Inthiscontext,highlyspecializedknowledgeand analysis will become more accessiblewhile retaining the robustness of rigorousanalysis. Static visual analytics will advanceto interactive visualization with supportinganalytical reasoning and scenario-design tohelp make well-informed dynamicdecisions in changing complex situations.Problems once unknowable due to theirsize and complexity may become quiteknowable. Combining foresight with policymodelling and especially visualisationtechniques will provide a new set of toolsexperts’ insightsCombining foresightwith policy modellingand especiallyvisualisationtechniques will providea new set of toolsextending from thepresentation ofdiscussion argumentsin argumentation mapformats for minimizingthe complexity ofpolicy debates to thecreation of virtualenvironments whichcan simulate thebehaviour of bothpolicy makers andcitizens in a real-lifelike environment.6. The best, more comprehensive and yet accessibleanalysis of network in general and of scale-free networkin particular is that provided by Barabasi. Originally the ideaemerged from a study of epidemiologists who discoveredthat most people have only a few sexual partners in theirlifetime but a few have hundreds and even thousandsand are the catalyser of sexual disease transmission.7. This has been demonstrated in a study of bingedrinking in the UK, (Ormerod P and Wiltshire G, 2009)and in the Framingham Heart Study. In the latter, alongitudinal cardiovascular study following residentssince 1948, suggested that the chances of a personbecoming obese rose by 57 per cent if they had a friendwho became obese (Christakis, and Fowler, 2007 and 2008).8. The figure and the table have used the monumentalbody of literature reviewed and transformed into themost comprehensive and up to date roadmap on thetopic of ICT for policy modelling produced as part of theFP7 project CROSSROAD [CROSSROAD, 2010].
  20. 20. 01/2013 myForesight®18experts’ insightsextending from the presentation ofdiscussion arguments in argumentationmap formats for minimizing the complexityof policy debates to the creation of virtualenvironments which can simulate thebehaviour of both policy makers andcitizens in a real-life like environment. Suchtechniques will be the building blocks ofnewintegratedpolicyintelligenceplatforms.In this regard, the recent call of the FP7 ICTWP 2011-2012 reinforced the focus of theresearch in the area of ICT for governanceand policy modelling and intends to furtheradvance the understanding of howemerging ICT tools for governance andpolicy modelling can provide opportunitiesfor decision-making in a complex world,through the dramatic and combinedgrowth of data available, analysis andsimulationtools,participativeandbehaviouralchange technologies. Integrating foresightmethodologies in this process is requiredand represent in oyr modest view the nextfrontier to be overcome.AcknowledgementsThis paper is in part based on research conductedby the Information Society Unit of the JRC IPTSwithin the CROSSROAD Project - A ParticipativeRoadmaponfutureresearchonICTforgovernanceand policy modelling, an EU FP7 Support Actionconducted by the consortium composed of:National Technical University of Athens, Tech4i2Ltd, University of Koblenz Landau, EPMA and theEuropean Commissions Joint Research CentreIPTS ( 3 ICT landscape in support of a policy evaluation paradigm shiftPublishedliteratureSHARED INFRASTRUCTURESemantic based dataand distributedcomputingData collectionData analysisAction• Open govt/ linked data• Participatory sensing• loT sensors• Nanotech• Data validation &filtering tools• Complex modeling• Social simulation• Opinion mining• Visual analytics• Collaborative production• Social networks analysis• Persuasive technologies• Serious gamingRaw andRecombined dataexperiments, simulationsData archivesRaw govt dataOfficiallyrecombined dataPOLICY &BEHAVIOURALCHANGEUser generated/reused dataAmbient/EnvironmentaldataScienceGovernmentCrowdsACTIONACTIONANSWERSScienceGovernmentCrowdsICTSource: Elaboration from CROSSROAD Roadmap (Osimo et al., 2010).