CV

PhD Thesis

Papers

Reports

Manuscripts

tr2023_insaat

Table of Contents

This thesis introduces the concept of ‘Systemic Foresight’. The concept suggests a new systemic view on institutional Foresight activities by applying the ideas of systems thinking. This necessity stemmed from the observation and analyses of existing institutional practices. On the one hand, it was seen that institutional Foresight is a widely acclaimed activity associated with policy making by government, industry and other organisations. Scarce resources are allocated based on advices coming. The activity is considered as a crucial tool for ‘correcting systems failures’, for instance in National Systems of Innovation, by completing the missing components in the system and building the missing connections. On the other hand, the analysis of the practices also indicated that institutional Foresight is perceived and practised as an unsophisticated activity. It is usually considered as an application of a single method or a group of methods in a systematic manner. There is a limited interaction with the context, where the exercise takes place and is expected to improve or introduce change. The content of the activity is also not considered sufficiently deeply and the pre-determined systematic process is applied to all sectors/themes/areas in the programme. This indicates the characteristics of a ‘positivist’ and ‘hard’ (functionalist) approach, where the solutions are produced first and then are applied to situations identified. This approach is more appropriate for well-structured and bounded situations where there is an assumption that system elements behave optimally.

The review of institutional Foresight literature reveals that Foresight circles recognise the existence of complexity and interdependency in decision-making in socio-economic systems. Nevertheless, ‘systematic mechanisms’ are proposed to deal with these ‘systemic situations’. Institutional Foresight is applied to social and human systems, which are ‘unbounded’ and ‘soft’ in characteristics. These contain too much complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, which institutional Foresight as practised currently cannot handle. Consequently, the current practices are liable to create ‘fragmented’ ideas relating to the part of the whole system, and as a result to produce an Ackoffian mess from an existing mess. These fragmented ideas are introduced to the physical and social systems at discrete time intervals that amount to ‘punctuation’.  

This thesis claims that pre-determined, pre-designed, procedural and prescriptive systematic methodologies cannot cope with the complex living systems which are not rational and optimal, but in contrast involve diverse and uncertain structures and behaviours. The thesis raises the need for systems thinking for institutional Foresight. Thus, Systemic Foresight is built upon four bases: (1) the Interpretive systems approach, which is capable to deal with the complexities and uncertainty of human and social systems; (2) basic features of systems thinking (including causality, holism, hierarchy and continuity), which guide thinking during the course of understanding, decision-making and intervention; (3) Contextualist research concept, which helps to consider the peculiarities of systems for the development of unique approaches for different systems; and (4) the Integrated Management concept, which provides necessary systemic framework for the transformation of a system from its existing state to its desired future state. Systemic Foresight provides a conceptual base for the organisation, design and deployment of Foresight exercises.