Initiation: Scoping and Managing ForSTI

  • Ian Miles
  • Ozcan Saritas
  • Alexander Sokolov
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)


Given the pervasiveness of STI in most aspects of our lives, our cultures and societies, ForSTI of one sort or another may be relevant to many policymakers, and many decision-makers in business and third sector bodies. ForSTI may be undertaken at almost any level of decision-making, though it has been most prominent to date at the national level. It has been used by international organisations, such as the European Commission (EC) and UNIDO (e.g. in support of TF activities in Latin America). More recently, regional authorities and governments in many countries have carried out ForSTI exercises. However non-governmental actors, such as professional associations and industry federations, have also been active in ForSTI, with exercises on topics such as agriculture, the automotive and aerospace industries, and higher education, having taken place since the late-1990s.


Delphi Survey Focal Object Multiple Criterion Analysis Project Management Team Trend Extrapolation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cameron, H., Loveridge, D., Cabrera, J., Castanier, L., Presmanes, B., Vazquez, L., et al. (1996). Technology foresight: Perspectives for European and international co-operation. Manchester: PREST. Final Report to European Commission DG XII.Google Scholar
  2. EFMN. (2009). Mapping foresight: Revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future. Brussels: European Foresight Monitoring Network (EFMN), European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Keenan, M., & Miles, I. (2008). Scoping and planning foresight. In L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, & R. Popper (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Loveridge, D. (1996). Technology foresight and models of the future. Ideas in Progress, Paper no. 4. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from
  5. Miles, I. (2013). Interactive impacts—Foresight as a product, service and coproduction process. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 60–82). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Miles, I., & Cunningham, P. (2006). Smart innovation: A practical guide to evaluating innovation programmes. Luxembourg: European Commission. ISBN 92079-01697-0. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from
  7. Miles, I., & Keenan, M. (Eds.). (2002). Practical guide to regional foresight in the United Kingdom. Luxembourg: European Commission. EUR 20478. ISBN 92 894 4682 (versions of this report were prepared for every EU15 country except Luxembourg). Retrieved January 14, 2016, from
  8. Popper, R. (2008). Foresight methodology. In L. Georghiou et al. (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Saritas, O., & Burmaoglu, S. (2015). The evolution of the use of foresight methods—A scientometric analysis of global research output for cutting-edge FTA approaches. Scientometrics, 105(1), 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Miles
    • 1
  • Ozcan Saritas
    • 1
  • Alexander Sokolov
    • 1
  1. 1.Higher School of EconomicsNational Research UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations