Foresight by the NRLO

For more updated information about NRLO's approach, you might also want to take a look at the slides that were used in presentations at:
the Wageningen Conference on ‘Towards an agenda for agricultural research in Europe’, April 1999, or
the Helsinki conference on 'Foresight at Crossroads', November 1999

From 'old' to 'new'

Table 1. NRLO: from old to new

	Old	New
Time perspective	Current and medium-term knowledge needs	Long-term knowledge needs (2010/2015)
Products	Recommendations	Options/strategies
Methods	Analysing supply and demand related with research efforts	Dialogue and consensus-building Modern strategic analyses Foresight studies
Organizational model	Advisory organization	Professional organization
Position and motivation of NRLO participants	Functional, interest-promoting, controlling	In private capacity, independent, innovative

Foresight studies

• exploring the challenges and opportunities regarding rural areas, agribusiness and fisheries that may be anticipated during the next few decades, within a European or global context;
• exploring the potential contributions by science and technology to help reveal and seize those opportunities.

The main question refers to the substance (directions, issues, priorities) and infrastructure (organization, funding) that are needed in this type of research in view of the situations that may be anticipated 15 or 20 years from now. Explicit attention is also paid to the link between present and future. This implies that analyses will also include current fields of influence, current policies and currently available instruments - and their potential dynamics. The crucial idea is that realization of long-term strategies should start right now.

Products

• strategies for the benefit of science and technology (main product);
• general strategies (by-product).

Table 2. The learning organization

Foresight studies are searching and learning processes (in relation to strategic issues for the future). Actors will learn and act most effectively if they personally recognize emerging problems and explore possible solutions. The support base for any results of foresight studies will increase considerably if the policy-makers have been party to the study. The NRLO will carry out foresight studies in interaction with innovation-oriented key actors. Foresight studies require a well-considered combination of cognitive and social processes. Process outcomes, including any knowledge about their future acquired by actors in the process, are more important than writing reports or publishing official proposals.

Sustainability

Foresight, Forecasting and research

Table 3. Forecasting versus foresight

	Forecasting	Foresight
Focus	Trends Probabilities	Trends Countermovements Discontinuities Uncertainties
Purpose	To anticipate a (most) probable future in terms of policy adaptation To facilitate policy-making by reducing uncertainties	To anticipate potential futures in terms of well-considered innovation To explore uncertainties and alternative strategies

Exploration versus research
Foresight studies differ considerably from research studies (in the classical sense of the word). Their differences include:

A. Knowledge, willingness and ability

• Research studies are focused on knowledge, i.e. on increasing knowledge and understanding; they are based on the psychological model which says that problems can be solved as soon as all the relevant facts and data have been collected;
• Apart from factual knowledge, foresight studies also examine willingness and ability.
• Problem-solving and strategic development not only require knowledge, they also require that attention is paid to norms, values, the attitudes and interests of groups and individuals (willingness) as well as their action potential (ability). The psychological model involved here is the idea of the triple unity of 'mind, heart and body'. It implies that norms and values, fields of influence, the institutional context of policy-making, the social debate and the development of alternative options and perspectives, i.e. in order to reveal willingness and ability, may be even more important than hunting down the facts. The design of both the social process and the cognitive process merits attention.

• Research studies concentrate on certainties, mapping out trends and developments; their psychological model stipulates that uncertainties should be reduced by investigating.
• Foresight studies not only value facts and trends, but especially uncertainties, ambiguities and discontinuities. It is not allowed to try and transform those uncertainties into certainties or probabilities; instead, one should recognize the existential essence of uncertainties, ambiguities and discontinuities. The challenge is how to deal with them. One should learn to think and act based on various futures.

• Reductionism is the dominant approach in research studies. Reality is simplified and subdivided in such a way that the resulting elements can be studied by applying established scientific methods.
• In foresight studies the first matter of importance is that a holistic or integrative approach is used, paying a great deal of attention to the interaction between the constituent parts of a problem or issue. Foresight studies are integrating studies where a method of mixed scanning is applied, i.e. they combine a panoramic point of view (to achieve integration and a general overview) with zooming in on the elements of greatest importance (to achieve depth).

• Research studies approach their questions by starting from specific disciplines, including their well-established paradigms, theories and methods. As a result, only those facts are collected that fit in with specific ways of seeing and working (the scientific method).
• Foresight studies will always raise the question as to whether the problem under study really is what it seems to be (the Socratic approach). Do we really apply the paradigms and theories that are most appropriate? Perhaps the dynamic of strategic issues is inherently chaotic rather than linear - and therefore permanently eludes total prediction. In that case we should work with the concepts derived from complexity theory and chaos theory rather than applying common arguments based on linear causality. In addition it will be necessary for foresight studies to take an approach that will transcend disciplinary boundaries.

Shifting paradigms

Three domains of creation

In its foresight studies the Council has been raising explicit questions about the existing paradigm of knowledge, technology and innovation. The paradigm implies that relations between research and innovation are seen as linear processes: from basic research to strategic and applied studies and then to actual practice. For many decades the paradigm has dominated the organisational structure of agricultural knowledge. More recently, a radical transformation of thought has been propagated by both trade and industry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, implying that the market rather than scientific research is the essential motivating factor. Still, another linear relationship is then considered to exist, this time starting with innovation needs and necessary technological developments resulting in knowledge development by separate scientific disciplines.
The line of thinking developed by the NRLO and the Consultative Committee on Foresight Studies (OCV) is based on the idea that linear relationships have become outdated. Thus, the Council has suggested three domains of creation to be distinguished: the production of (fundamental) knowledge (K), the development of technology and skills (T), and innovation (I). The three domains differ substantially (see table 4).

	Knowledge generation	Developing technology and skills	Innovation
Products	new facts, insights and theories	new techniques, methods and skills	new products, processes, services, concepts and systems
Leading actors	universities, research institutes	institutes for scientific and technological research, consultancy and engineering firms, corporate laboratories	innovative entrepreneurs
Differences in cultural environment
Motivations	curiosity	developing and controlling technologies and skills	profitability and surviving in a competitive environment
Competences required	abstract-analytical abilities, an attitude of critical doubt	diagnostic powers and designing skills	innovative capabilities
Success measurement	international scientific assessment	effectiveness of technological or "skillful" solution	success in the "market"
Access of knowledge base	public	part public, part private	private

Table 4: Differences between three domains of creation

The three domains of creation have different objectives. Knowledge production involves detecting facts as well as generating new theories and insights. Developing technologies and skills involves developing new techniques, methods and skills. And innovation refers to efforts to realize new products, processes, services and systems. But the three domains do not only differ in their objectives. In order to be successful, the three processes of creation should also be controlled in differing ways. Furthermore, it is essential for the vitality of the three subsystems that they are in constant interaction with their environment ('congruity'). This reciprocity is of utmost importance for system maintenance, procedures and design. The three domains of creation differ considerably in their 'cultural environments' (motivations, accounting mechanisms, rules of the game). They each have their own separate set of rules and criteria of success, while requiring distinctly different skills and attitudes (see the diagram 'Distinguishing characteristics of K, T and I'). If these differences are not taken into account sufficiently by policy-makers, the long-term result will be that at least one of the domains will get stuck.

Thus, in the Council's opinion, it is a key challenge of future policies in the fields of knowledge and innovation that they ensure the vitality of all three domains of creation. This will require policies that are specifically adjusted to the domains involved.

Figure 1: The LAT-Model

Another factor of importance to the organisation of policy-making in the fields of knowledge and innovation is the perception of combined actions between the three domains. NRLO report 97/17 described their interplay as 'living apart together'. Generating fundamental knowledge, developing technology and skill, and innovation: each one of them is appreciated for its own sake and its own dynamics. At the same time, any interaction between the three of them will produce additional value. Examples include:

• in order to accomplish innovations - in addition to other activities such as production, marketing and finance - it is often necessary to develop technologies and skills or even to generate fundamental knowledge;
• conversely, generating fundamental knowledge may open up fresh opportunities for developing new technologies or innovations.

The implications of this LAT relationship are that policy-making should focus on developing all three individual domains as well as their mutual interplay.
Research, transfer of information, training and education (permanent education) play their part in all three domains. However, activities may take quite different forms in the three domains. Two illustrations may suffice:

• theoretical and abstract learning will be emphasized when generating basic knowledge, whereas innovation will stress practical learning;
• laboratory experiments will be emphasized when generating basic knowledge, whereas innovation will stress interactive scientific practice.

Innovation is needed at system level

During the year 1997 the Council has been paying explicit attention to the issue of innovation in agrobusiness and rural areas. Innovations come in all shapes and sizes. As a result, innovations mayhave considerably different degrees of thoroughness. Process and product innovations will mostly involve incremental innovation, whereas system innovations will involve more structural types of modernisation.
The latter are much more drastic. Frequently, they will have repercussions for many parties in the sector while various partners in society are affected as well. This may be illustrated by referring to the innovation of the auction system in the Netherlands. System innovations of this kind will lead to changed interactions with the environment and it is not uncommon to find that various functions - social, economic, technological - will have to be redefined. System innovations tend to be relatively radical alterations, putting technical systems under review and bringing about shifts in cultural paradigms: older values are replaced by newer ones, which will nearly always cause a great deal of resistance.
Dutch agriculture today is in a phase when a fundamental changeover to sustainable agriculture will be necessary. At the same time, the use of rural areas is being drastically redefined. It involves both competition for space and finding new possible combinations of highly diverse functions (agriculture, recreation, nature, housing, infrastructure, water collection, etc.). Actors playing a role in the use of rural areas are trying to find and create new opportunities to increase the functionality and quality level of rural areas.

Over the past few decades many incremental improvements have been achieved within existing agricultural systems. However, improving current systems is unlikely to be sufficient to find solutions for the great diversity of problems in relation to customer orientation, environmental protection, animal health and welfare, degeneration of scenery and nature, and reduced social legitimacy of agriculture. To solve these issues it will be necessary to achieve far-reaching reorganisations as well as innovations that transcend individual business levels and short-term commercial interests.
Examples of system innovations include:

• new systems for logistics and distribution of agrofood and ornamental plant products;
• new function combinations in rural areas;
• new animal production systems (combining design requirements in terms of animal health, environmental protection, animal welfare, labour income, and working conditions);
• environment-friendly system innovations at higher aggregate levels (resulting in closed cycles of substance use between agriculture and other sectors);
• new integrated animal health strategies (i.e. strategies satisfying both veterinary-zootechnical and public-health, economic, ecological, social, ethical, managerial and political requirements).

Conceptualisation in system innovations

Although system innovations may be necessary for agrobusiness and rural areas to be vital and sustainable in the 21st century, they are difficult to achieve, both organisationally, culturally and financially:

• Innovating not only requires scientifically tested knowledge, but also context-dependent practical experience and know-how. Innovating requires procedures to achieve that both explicit and implicit knowledge bases are mobilized and combined.
• System innovations require intensive interactions between problem owners and professionals. Mostly, they will be problem owners with diverse interests and professionals with diverse qualities. Private-public partnerships will frequently be a precondition for success.
• Important functions and processes in system innovations include: taking the initiative (defining the problem, 'pulling'); conducting negotiations and acting as intermediaries; combining ideas, energies and interests; facilitating and directing; learning both individually and collectively. Careful organisation of this processes and functions will be essential for system innovations to be successful.
• Exploring, designing, testing and realizing are the primary activities of system innovations. A leading role will be played by activities such as data collection, creativity and selection, knowledge integration and making new combinations of available technologies rather than generating new knowledge.
• System innovations require professional expertise in both science, humanities and social sciences. It is not sufficient to consider only purely scientific or technological aspects of innovations; rather, they will also involve analyses of organisational, managerial, political, economic, ecological, structural and cultural elements associated with developing and implementing innovations.
• In order to make valuable contributions in exploring and designing system innovations, research efforts will need essentially different methods and qualities as compared to knowledge generation: from analysing and explaining towards synthesizing; from monodisciplinary towards multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary activities; from optimizing current reality towards designing new systems; from specialities towards 'T-shaped skills' or the ability to combine disciplinary thoroughness and scope; from purely scientific research towards co-innovation in close collaboration with various groups of both researchers and non-researchers.
• System innovations should be organised in such a way that highly differing parties may take concerted action. Innovation creating networks (consortiums, strategic alliances) are highly appropriate in this respect. Particular attention should be paid to the flexibility and outcome orientation of networks. Also, the network design to be selected should be dependent on both the nature and context of the innovation process.
• Innovative policies aiming to achieve system innovations will need financial structures that encourage various professionals and parties to take concerted action in order to accomplish radical innovations. It should be avoided that economic resources are allocated in advance to specific institutes for conducting research or providing information; rather, resources should be made available to the innovation project as a whole, being managed by the consortium leadership and assigned to activities and qualified parties that are needed to accomplish the innovation. Finally, an adequate accounting and assessment system should be made operational.

• It is not functionally appropriate to distinguish between fundamental research, strategic research, applied research and practical research. What is needed in cases of innovation is an entirely new way of considering and designing the relation between innovation and research.
• If the objective is innovation, it is inadequate to think in terms of a 'division between policy-making and implementation' or 'boards of policy-makers and businesses define problems and research institutes take care of their solutions'. Innovation requires that problem owners, researchers as well as other parties involved will combine their efforts to find solutions.
• The desire to avoid establishing new institutional facilities as well as to maintain a strict division of tasks between trade and industry, government and knowledge institutes is counterproductive to achieving system innovations. System innovations require a network approach and specific innovative structures created in the context of the innovation process.
• In order to make effective contributions to innovation, many research institutes will have to change their organisational cultures. Also, researchers must be willing to act as co-innovators.
• The institutional design as well as the allocation mechanism currently used in its knowledge and innovation policies by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries are inadequate to achieve system innovations. Providing financial support for research programmes and research institutes is one thing, but financing innovation themes and innovation creating networks is quite another matter.

[NRLO Home - English page]