The APEC Center for Technology Foresight was set up in February 1998. It has pioneered the concept of multi-economy Foresight and the paper describes the methodologies used, namely scenario analysis, Delphi surveys and consultation. Four studies have been carried out so far. These are: Water Supply and Management in 1998, Technology for Learning and Culture together with Sustainable Transport in 1999, and Healthy Futures for APEC Megacities in 2000.
The studies have identified critical policy issues and the technologies needed to deal with them, and implications for the APEC region. There has been strong support from APEC economies with scenario analysis being more effective than Delphi due to the problems of interpretation of questions by experts having English as a second language.
Up till now virtually all technology Foresight has been carried out within the nation state. Most of the papers at this conference fall into that category. In principle there is no reason why Foresight cannot be extended to regions to look at their social and economic needs and at the scientific and technological opportunities for helping to meet those needs. However the diversity of national and regional cultures and structures within a region has proved too daunting until recently ( Martin and Johnston 1998). The only two groups attempting multi-country Foresight are the APEC Center for Technology Foresight in Bangkok and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville. You will hear of the IPTS experience in the context of Europe in the next paper.
APEC ( Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) is an extraordinarily diverse group of 22 economies all round the Pacific rim from New Zealand to Chile. Originally a somewhat loose grouping based on reduction of tariffs to promote trade it has developed because of perceived benefits of cooperation in various areas such as infrastructure, energy, transport, human resources development, communications and industrial science and technology. There are Working Groups with regular meetings developing cooperative projects and reporting to Ministerial meetings. The APEC Center formally reports to the Industrial Science and Technology Working Group(ISTWG) but has links to other Working Groups in areas of interest.
The APEC Center was introduced earlier by Dr Chatri Sripaipan. Since its inception in early 1998 the APEC Center has tackled a number of multi-economy studies and this paper discusses the methodologies used and the lessons learned so far. A preliminary discussion of the issues has been given by Jewell and Sripaipan 1998.
As part of the background to setting up the APEC Center a survey of APEC economies identified a list of more than 50 possible topics of concern; these were discussed by over 100 participants from16 economies at a Foresight Symposium in Chiang Mai in mid 1997 (APEC Center 1997).They were split into three categories: environmental protection/ clean green energy; water supply/ food supply; communications/ creative technologies and priorities were assigned. These inputs were subsequently used in selecting topics for study.
Prior to the selection of topics the APEC Center developed a number of criteria as:
The studies to be considered are: Water Supply and Management; Technology for Learning and Culture; Sustainable Transport, and Healthy Cities. The first two used a combination of scenario writing and Delphi survey while the latter two used scenario writing and consultation.
This topic was clearly identified as of high importance at the Chiang Mai meeting and met the criteria noted above. Thus water problems are not limited to developing countries - "Current patterns of water use in developing countries, countries with economies in transition and industrialised countries alike are often not sustainable" and cannot be addressed at a national level -"Apart from island countries almost all countries are involved in the problems of international river basins to some extent." ( extracts from the Issues Paper)
For this first multi-economy study the APEC Center decided to use a combination of scenario analysis and Delphi. The scenario analysis aimed to get a small group of APEC experts together to identify the issues and the Delphi aimed to involve a much larger group of experts and stakeholders and to seek their opinions.
To set the scene an Issues Paper was prepared in early 1998 by an Australian consultant covering the supply, management and use of the world's water resources and this identified key issues and policy options. This was circulated to Experts nominated by APEC economies after an invitation sent through official APEC channels. The Experts , ten from nine economies, were then brought together for a Workshop at Hua Hin, Thailand in May 1998. Experts offered brief presentations about water issues in their own economy which allowed issues of mutual concern to emerge clearly. A scenario building process was then carried out over one and a half days. Having identified 15 'uncertainties' and rated them according to their likely impact and degree of uncertainty, the Experts were divided into three groups with each group assigned a different set of scenario logics. The groups explored these logics from the point of view of people looking back from the year 2010 at the events which led to the 'present' situation. The outputs of these groups were then drafted into consistent scenarios by the facilitator and refined by the groups. Finally topics for a Delphi study were identified.
The Delphi topics were refined into clear concise questions by the APEC Center with assistance from experts and consultants. The first round questionnaire contained 58 topics covering technology, resource and policy issues. The details will be covered by Dr Shin in a later paper, particularly the issue of invention versus diffusion of technology which is the norm in most APEC economies.
The sample of 605 experts was obtained through the Experts, I STWG and contacts by the APEC Center. The response rate to the first round was about 19 per cent, despite active follow-up. Based on the comments and suggestions of respondents the questionnaire for the second round was revised and a further 6 questions added. The response rate to the second round was about 59 per cent. Full details are given in Vol 2 0f the report( APEC Center 1999b).
Based on the inputs from the Workshop and the Delphi a concise policy statement highlighting the outcomes , both in terms of desirable policy and of enabling technologies, was prepared (APEC Center 1999a) and copies were circulated to all APEC economies through the APEC contact points.
Post-Foresight activities have included presentations and discussions with experts and stakeholders in Hong Kong, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok during 1999. A further presentation is scheduled in Mexico City in mid 2000.
The study itself occupied about 12 months from commissioning of the Issues Paper to publication of the policy report with the volume of supporting material a month or two later, However it is clear that the post-Foresight phase will continue to the end of 2000. This long period makes evaluation difficult.
This topic emerged as of importance from the Chiang Mai meeting and met the criteria noted earlier. Again its importance and relevance to the APEC region cannot be disputed. Thus: "The discussion on the impact of ICT on the economy, trade , learning and culture has been in the forefront of many people's thinking for many years... The increasing use of ICT requires a flexible and adaptable citizenry, new forms of work and new forms of organization'' (extract from a Consultant's paper).
For this second multi-economy study the APEC Center decided to use the same methodology as in the Water study, building on the challenges identified there:
To set the scene an Issues Paper was prepared by the National Research Council of Canada(NRC) in late 1998 and presented to a public meeting in Bangkok along with presentations by other speakers on the topic. The enthusiastic response from the audience of about 200 people highlighted the relevance of the topic.
Experts were sought from APEC economies through official channels and the Issues Paper was circulated. It was also placed on the APEC Center website. NRC also provided an external Consultant who prepared an additional Discussion Paper. The nominated Experts, twenty seven from twelve economies, were brought together for a Workshop in Vancouver in May 1999,strongly supported by NRC.
The format of the Workshop was similar to that of the Water study but in this case the computer literacy of the group was high and it was possible to rapidly record and feedback the outcomes of group deliberations and to develop scenarios in more detail. The use of computers also enabled a better development of the Delphi issues on an interactive basis. It was thus possible to produce a full report of the Workshop soon after the Workshop ( APEC Center 1999c) and put it on the APEC Center website.
However the formulation of the Delphi again took some time even with interaction with the Experts and Consultants. The first round questionnaire contained 51 topics covering technologies, management, contents and learning resources, Government policies, human resource development and culture. A similar set of innovation stages was used recognising that diffusion was probably the main mode of technology transfer. Again the comments and suggestions from respondents were very searching.
Participants in the Delphi were sought through a variety of sources and a sample of 520 was obtained with a response rate of 26 per cent, after active follow-up. In the second round another question was added and specific details were sought on the situation in each responding economy. The response rate was only 46 per cent; this may indicate a reaction against dealing with a more complex questionnaire. Full details are in Vol. 2 of the report ( APEC Center 2000b).
Again based on the outcomes from the Workshop and the Delphi, a concise policy statement highlighting desirable policies and enabling technologies was produced(APEC Center 2000a). This will be circulated widely and a program of post-Foresight activities developed. The study occupied some 16 months from production of the Issues Paper to publication of the policy document with the volume of supporting material a month or so later.
This topic together with Healthy Cities was identified as a priority one during the Chiang Mai meeting and together with Water Supply and Management was seen by the APEC Center as contributing to views on the larger topic of the Future of Megacities. The topic met the criteria noted above and again its importance was clear: "The net social costs of traffic congestion are high in most industrialised counrties, generally being equivalent to between two to three per cent of GDP. They are a lot higher in developing countries with relatively small land areas devoted to transport arteries, poor design of transport systems and lack of maintenance."(extract from the Issues Paper).
For this third multi-economy study, because of the material acailable and the heavy load imposed on APEC Center staff by the use of Delphi in terms of identification of experts, follow-up and processing, it was decided to use a combination of scenario analysis, literature review and consultation., with a Consultant participating strongly throughout the study.
To set the scene an Issues Paper was prepared by an Australian Consultant from the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies(CSES) at the Victoria University of Technology in April 1999. This was distributed to Experts nominated by APEC economies and placed on the APEC Center website. Sixteen Experts from seven economies were brought together for a Workshop at CSES in Melbourne in July 1999, with support from the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources.
The format of the Workshop was similar to that of the previous two studies. Again the use of computers enabled a rapid feed-back from group deliberations and allowed time for a detailed discussion of policy implications and prioritisation of actions. It was also possible to produce a record of the meeting for participants to take away with them(APEC Center 1999d).
The Consultant then revised the Issues Paper and continued an intensive survey of the literature. He produced two more draft reports for interactive discussion with the Experts and other interested parties and presented a final report to a meeting in Bangkok in December 1999. He also spent time with Thai officials from the Ministry of Transport and Communications on the Master Plan to 2006 and from the Bangkok Municipal Administration.
A policy statement was prepared in early 2000 (APEC Center 2000c) and this will be distributed to APEC economies together with the full report (APEC Center 2000d).A program of post-Foresight activities will be developed. The study took about eleven months from commissioning of the Issues Paper to publication of the reports.
Again this satisfies the criteria for an APEC study and is of pressing significance as:"Urbanisation has been particularly pronounced in the Asian and Pacific region in the second half of the 20th century... By the year 2025 Asia will become predominantly urbanised with an urban population of 2.5 billion or 55 per cent of the total population"(extract from an Asian Development Bank report 1999).
For this fourth multi-economy study the APEC Center is using a modified scenarios approach because of the breadth of the topic and the considerable activity in progress through the World Health Organisation. Thus to set the scene a Discussion Paper was prepared by experts from the Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise at the University of North Carolina and from the Center for Disease Control at Atlanta. This was then circulated to a small group of invited Experts including from the World Health Organisation. This Core Group met together in Bangkok in February 2000 and identified the issues for the study. With the assistance of an Australian Consultant they developed three scenarios for Healthy Cities in 2020.
These scenarios are being further developed and will form an input to a much larger Workshop to be held in Bangkok in May 2000. This will involve nominated Experts in a broad range of disciplines and will use the scenarios to examine policy implications and actions. It hoped to produce a major policy document by late 2000 and that the Experts will assist in implementation.
As noted in the Introduction a preliminary discussion of some of the issues in multi-economy Foresight have been given by Jewell and Sripaipan 1998 . Based on the further experience noted above we can expand the discussion.
The four studies have involved technology and policy issues from the start not suprisingly since they all involve issues linking technology and society. In two cases the papers have been commissioned by the APEC Center while in the other two they have been produced by groups taking a keen interest in the study from the start and thus having a strong sense of ownership. The papers have been a vital input to the Workshops and by placing them on the APEC website a wider group has been involved.
These have all been facilitated by experienced Consultants from APEC economies and this has been important in ensuring useful outputs since the Workshops have involved senior Experts from various disciplines and institutional settings (academia public sector and private enterprise) who had not met before. Further most of the Experts were completely new to Foresight and scenario-building and most were using English as a second language. The APEC Center staff have become increasingly competent in small group facilitation with people from different cultures. Finally the APEC Center has not been able to exert any control over selection of Experts and hence quality of participants has been variable.
The scenario exercises have succeeded in encouraging the participants to look beyond their daily concerns and in to the longer-term future, a leap of imagination greatly assisted by a structured approach of identification of issues, establishing key drivers, identifying uncertainties and then developing scenarios. As their experience grows the APEC Center staff and Consultants have developed the use of computers in the Workshops as noted above.
The strong support of institutions outside Thailand as noted above, from NRC with Technology for Learning and Culture in Vancouver and from CSES with Sustainable Transport in Melbourne, has contributed to the development of a presence outside Bangkok as originally envisaged. The recent inputs from US institutions in the Healthy Cities study are also important in this regard.
The comments from the Experts attending the Workshops have been very positive and it appears that some useful and lasting links have been forged. The Experts can play a role in the post-Foresight activities. However it is clear that links need to be developed with key institutions in economies at an earlier stage of studies to build up stronger and wider networks.
While the two Delphi Surveys have been useful in engaging a wide range of experts and stakeholders a number of features have emerged that are different to national surveys. Dr Shin will cover the details of the Delphi Surveys later but it is worth making some comments here.
On the second rounds the response rates of 59 and 46 per cent were lower than the accepted figure of about 80 per cent. This may indicate a cultural reaction against dealing with a complex questionnaire for a second time.
This paper covers four multi-economy Foresight studies conducted over a two year period and clearly the APEC Center is still in a learning process. As OECD has concluded no individual Foresight approach is perfect and each has its strengths and weaknesses (Martin 1996).
The APEC Center has used scenario-writing as a basic tool and it has proved successful in identifying issues and developing policy options. However it is necessarily a small group activity and the longer term networking of participants needs nurturing. Scenarios linked to literature reviews and to consultations have proved useful.
The Delphi approach offers the potential to reach a larger group in anonymity but it requires much more effort both to secure a sufficient number of participants and to ensure that a range of economies are represented. Some of the problems of interpretation and of ownership of the Delphi could perhaps be overcome by using the first round of the Delphi in a structured way to generate a set of issues which could then form the basis for further rounds of detailed questions.