International Workshop on FORESIGHT Sofia, Bulgaria June 1920, 2003

1
International Workshop on FORESIGHTSofia,
Bulgaria June 19-20, 2003
Mainly structured from Dr. Michael Keenan
(PREST)s presentations papers on
prioritisation

• Prioritisation in Foresight
• Panel vs. Programme prioritisation

Rafael Popper Research Associate Rafael.Popper_at_man
.ac.uk
Dobar den!
2
Outline

• Challenges of prioritisation
• Panel Programme level prioritisation
• CSIRO method
• Australia, UK, Hungary, Czech Rep.
• Priorities from Delphi
• Priorities from SIM (Stakeholders Interests Map)

3
Notable challenges ( controversies . . .)

• To prioritise or not to prioritise?
• Level of prioritisation
• Panel
• Programme
• Granularity challenge of formulating actionable
  priorities (aggregation)
• Comparing
• Scale
• Techno and non-techno elements
• Dependency and synergistic relations
• Implementing prioritisation models in reality

4
Panel prioritisation

• Pros
• Carried out only by experts in a given area,
  lending the results more credibility, at least
  with the ST communities
• Cons
• Cross-panel issues are likely to be missed if no
  attempts are made to draw things together at the
  programme level
• Possible (likely?) inconsistency in application
  of prioritisation criteria across panels

5
Programme prioritisation

• Pros
• Cross-panel topics are given the space to emerge
• Clear messages can emerge that lend a programme
  political weight
• Cons
• Who decides? Credibility, legitimacy and
  authority issues here
• Data overload can justice be done to the
  panels findings?

6
CSIRO methodology

• Used in Australia, UK, Hungary, Czech Republic
• Plots attractiveness vs. feasibility
• Key steps
• Construct list of issues/technologies to be
  prioritised
• Set the criteria, their values, and any weighting
• Establish a group to conduct the assessment
• Provide data and evaluation information
• Invite the group to score the technologies
• Process the score and plot into an
  attractiveness-feasibility matrix
• Discuss and debate scores invite group to score
  again
• Identify policy actions

7
(No Transcript)
8
Example of Prioritisation Criteria in AUSTRALIA
9
Additional Criteria Cost and Timescale
10
Benefits / limits of CSIRO

• Benefits
• Allows for the simple and accessible
  representation of multiple assessments
• Limitations
• Difficulties related to scoring criteria
• Sometimes (often?) failure to think prospectively
  
• Matrix is often read statically rather than
  dynamically

11
Priorities from Delphi

• Variables can be an important resource for
  indicating importance, desirability,
  feasibility, and policy options related to
  technological and social innovation
• Indices can be developed and plotted against one
  another to identify priorities and
  recommendations
• UK Hungary developed country-related index
• These possibilities should be borne in mind when
  designing the Delphi

12
Priorities from SIM (Stakeholders Interest Map)

• Variables can be analysed based on stakeholders
  needs and interests
• Identification of stakeholders' actions (i.e.
  alliances)
• Identification of antagonistic visions
  interests (i.e. potential conflicts)
• Identification of feasible attractive strategies

13
Priorities for Research Council Spending

• Focused on policies rather than on areas of
  research
• Importance of people emphasised
• Improved support for PhDs (with increased
  stipends)
• Improved support for research careers
• Backing leading researchers with flexible
  longer-term funds on the basis of track record
• supporting areas of strength or centres of
  excellence
• standard response mode funding kept to grow
  islands of excellence
• reduce the overhead of time spent in obtaining
  and accounting for funding.

14
Blagodarya!Thank you!

• Rafael Popper
• PREST, University of Manchester, UK

Rafael.Popper_at_man.ac.uk http//les1.man.ac.uk/PRES
T
Dobar den!
15
Exercise 4 - Prioritisation (30 minutes)

• Please get together in 4 groups
• You will be divided in 2 panels (biotechnology
  e-governance)
• Construct list of areas/goals/technologies to be
  prioritised (attractiveness vs. feasibility)
• Set the criteria (potential benefits, ability to
  capture the benefits, RD Potential, RD
  Capacity)
• Criteria values/weighting (5very high, 4better
  than EE average, 3same as EE average, 2below EE
  average, 1very low, 0none)
• Score the areas, goals or technologies
• Process the score and plot into an
  attractiveness-feasibility matrix
• Discuss and debate scores invite group to score
  again
• Identify policy actions