Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

A holistic approach to strategic foresight: A foresight support

system for the German Federal Armed Forces
Carolin Durst a,, Michael Durst b,c, Thomas Kolonko d, Andreas Neef e, Florian Greif c
a
Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany
b
FOM University of Applied Sciences, Nuremberg, Germany
c
ITONICS GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany
d
German Federal Armed Forces, Berlin, Germany
e
Z_punkt GmbH, Cologne, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Companies increasingly face a dynamic environment, where unexpected change is the norm rather
Received 8 March 2013 than the exception. Strategic foresight uses a variety of methods to assess possible future events.
Received in revised form 10 January 2014 Combining different foresight methods and integrating expert opinions transform the strategic
Accepted 17 January 2014 foresight process into a powerful but major undertaking. IT systems can assist with the growing
Available online 7 February 2014
complexity of strategic foresight methods. Currently, specialized IT systems can support various
strategic foresight methods and foresight activities, but these are generally focused on isolated
Keywords: applications rather than providing a holistic solution.
Foresight support system This article contributes to the field of foresight support systems by documenting and demonstrating
Foresight process
the development and implementation of a foresight support system tailored for the German
Foresight methods
Federal Armed Forces. We draw on a literature-based design for foresight support systems and
Web-based collaboration
Software development demonstrate how our system addresses issues raised in the literature. Our system provides a
holistic approach to strategic foresight incorporating the rules of order in foresight processes,
foresight method combinations, mechanisms for the reuse of foresight activity results, and
collaborative decision-making.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction developments and also the possibility of shaping these future

Effective strategic management relies on the capacity of a
company to explore the existence of trends, risks, crises and
other possible expected and unexpected change, assess and
prioritize, and respond by mobilizing company resources [1,2].
Strategic foresight makes it possible to analyze potential future
developments in a business, market or technology environ-
ment, in order to determine their implications for management
[3]. In this article strategic foresight is defined as a means to
scientifically deal with possible, desirable and probable future
Corresponding author at: Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich
Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nuremberg,
Germany. Tel.: +49 911 5302 455; fax: +49 911 5302 379.
E-mail address: carolin.durst@fau.de (C. Durst).
developments [1,4]. It is clearly impossible to predict the future
accurately, but future uncertainties and complexities can be
reduced or at least anticipated by identifying and analyzing
various current and past parameters [57].
Strategic foresight provides a variety of methods to tap into
the know-how of individuals with different areas of expertise
[3,8]. Combining different methods and integrating a variety of
expert opinions can transform strategic foresight processes into
a valuable business tool, albeit this also means the process may
become a complex undertaking [9]. Information and Communi-
cation Technology (ICT) is currently being frequently used in
support of strategic foresight, for example in offering features
such as integrated project management or for the allocation of
individual experts to specific foresight methods [10,11]. ICT
is also used extensively for data collection, data analysis or
to integrate the inputs from geographically dispersed experts

0040-1625/$ see front matter 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.005
92 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
(e.g., [1215]). Providing data storage and data warehousing to
enable the (re)use of foresight activity results [1618] and the
support of collaborative decision-making, analytical modeling,
multicriteria methods and simulation are all examples of the use
of ICT in support of the strategic foresight processes [1921].
Despite all these examples, currently there is no compre-
hensive set of ICT tools to holistically support various activities in
strategic foresight [9,22,23]. For example, the development of
future options is usually left to workshops or other extremely
time-consuming methods.
The German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) has a
dedicated Future Analysis Section [24] tasked with keeping
track of the evolution of security policy implications. The
Section is staffed by uniformed officers and civilian researchers
with different backgrounds (biology, political sciences, engi-
neering, economics, etc.), who rotate on a regular basis to
ensure a constant flow of fresh thinking. The Section also
collaborates with external partners in order to address any
perceived gap in the expertise of its own staff.
In a recent study of the future of the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) area, experts from different institutions
were brought in to provide input about the different MENA
spheres. This study, while successful, highlighted four main
shortcomings in the foresight approach of the German
Federal Armed Forces:
(1) There was no comprehensive foresight process with an
appropriate set of methods in place, and therefore the
results could not be reproduced and thus were not
reliable.
(2) Many foresight methods require substantial data
input. Processing these data was time-consuming and
error-prone.
(3) Knowledge acquired in the course of other foresight
projects had not been documented in a structured
fashion, making it difficult to reuse the knowledge
gained from previous projects.
(4) Geographical dispersion of the experts made collabo-
rative decision-making very difficult.
As a consequence, the German Federal Armed Forces
requested that a new foresight support system be designed,
providing a flexible foresight process, allowing the combination
and seamless integration of different methods, and supporting
data processing, collaboration and documentation.
After reviewing existing foresight support system, e.g. EIT
Innovation Radar [18], Foresight Toolbox [25] and Competitiveness
Monitor [26], the German Federal Armed Forces found that none
of the IT systems, prototypes and concepts identified support a
holistic, collaborative, multiple-method, strategic foresight pro-
cess. This can be partly explained by the fact that strategic
foresight projects, like research and development projects, use
unique, individual processes and are predominantly conducted
by organizations to solve specific problems or to discuss complex
strategic questions connected with a dedicated field of interest
[27]. The Foresight Toolbox is a proof-of-concept platform that
merely provides information on foresight methods applicable
at different phases of the foresight process; but it does not offer
any further feature for communication, decision-modeling
or rules of order. The EIT Innovation Radar offers an online
platform that enables the involvement of different stake-
holders in the foresight process, but lacks the formalization of
decision procedures and the Competitive Monitor is still in the
prototype phase.
The shortcomings listed above and the lack of existing
solutions are the reasons that the German Federal Armed
Forces developed, implemented and tested its own foresight
support system, which is presented in this article.
The next section of this article provides an overview of the
essential components and design issues of foresight support
systems. Section 3 demonstrates the development of the
foresight support system called RAHS (Risk Assessment and
Horizon Scanning). This section also includes a critical review
of how well the foresight system supported the solution of a
sample problem. We will then examine the extent to which the
RAHS system addressed the suggested design issues and how it
helped in documenting the lessons learnt. We conclude with a
summary of the implications of implementing the proposed
system in cross-company settings.
2. Components and design issues of foresight
support systems
Amanatidou and Guy [28] developed a framework to
conceptualize the dynamics of foresight systems. According
to their study foresight has to be seen as a system of processes,
actors, objectives, inputs and outputs. The main goal of a
foresight support system is to support this complex system
with tools that enable collaboration among the actors, ensure
transparency and consistency of foresight results and support
the efficient handling of very large volumes of data without
limiting the flexibility of the foresight process [9,29,30]. There
has been little previous work examining components of and
design guidelines for foresight support systems. Banuls and
Salmeron [9] investigated components and design issues
of foresight support systems. According to their definition, a
foresight support system should aim to support
the rules of order in foresight processes,
the combination and integration of different foresight
methods,
the reuse of results of foresight activities, and
the collaborative decision-making.
The following four subsections examine these components
of foresight support systems in detail, followed by a summary
of the resulting design issues.
2.1. Rules of order in foresight processes
The process and procedures are at the heart of every
foresight project. Depending on the project scope and the
specific field of interest, process and procedures shape the
structure of foresight activities, inform the methods used,
and help nominating the required expertise [911,27].
Fig. 1 shows the foresight process based on Horton [31],
Sutherland and Woodroof [32] and Voros [33].
As shown in Fig. 1, the overall process is roughly divided
into three phases: input, foresight and output. The input
phase starts with the formulation of a strategic question and
determines the scope of the foresight project. Step 2 of the
input phase is information-gathering. Data from different
sources, e.g. the Internet, interviews with experts and publica-
tions [32] are elicited, collected, and appropriately stored.
 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
Added value Foresight process
Scoping
Input
Information
Gathering information
Analysis
Foresight
Insight
Interpretation
Prospection
Understanding
Assessment
Output
Knowledge Strategy
Action
Fig. 1. Foresight processes adopted from Horton [31], Sutherland and
Woodroof [32] and Voros [33].
Details of the various methods of gathering and structuring
such data for further processing used in the solution appear
later in this article.
Step 1 in the foresight phase is the structuring and analysis
of these data. Step 2 is interpretation looking more deeply
into the structured data and generating insights. Voros [33]
uses the term prospection for the next step, which translates
into the activity of purposefully looking forward to create
forward views. In step 3 alternative futures are postulated and
assessed, and strategies for them created and evaluated.
Each step in the foresight process can be backed by dedicated
methods, which support the value-creation process by ensuring
the transition from information to action whilst also reducing
complexity and uncertainty [8,11,32,33]. Sutherland and
Woodroof [32] suggest different foresight methods to individ-
ual phases of the foresight process. The two most frequently
used methods are trend analysis [17] and scenario technique
[19,34,35]. For a detailed description of foresight methods we
refer to Porter [20] and Popper [36]. Each method is best suited
to certain specific objectives, contexts, resources, cultures and
the mindset of project participants, and will perform poorly if
used outside these parameters.
Software solutions supporting foresight processes should
provide information about the process itself, e.g. time horizon,
foresight methods, experts involved, and support the communi-
cation among foresight participants with integrated synchronous
and asynchronous communication tools like videoconference or
93
electronic messaging [9]. Based on concepts of rights and roles
software solutions should provide features for rules of order
within foresight projects for each participant [9].
2.2. Combination and integration of foresight methods
Popper [36] divided foresight methods into two groups:
their nature (qualitative and quantitative), and their capabil-
ities (creativity, expertise, evidence and interaction). Creativity
methods rely on the ingenuity and inventiveness of individuals,
whereas expertise methods require the inherent knowledge
of the individuals. Evidence-based methods seek to explain
or forecast certain phenomena by means of statistics and
measurement indicators. Many methods like Delphi or brain-
storming are collaborative in nature and are therefore
characterized as interactive methods. Within a holistic fore-
sight process, the result of one foresight method may serve as
an input for another foresight method. Trend analysis, for
example, requires a great deal of different input data from
bibliometrics and patent analysis for instance [15] and also
scenario techniques integrate and analyze data and informa-
tion from upstream methods [21]. To manage the required
amount of data in specific formats, many foresight methods
rely on the support of software systems. However, the crucial
step towards successful foresight support systems is the
seamless integration of multiple methods qualitative and
quantitative ones.
Researchers already have developed innovative ap-
proaches which apply a combination of two or three
methods, which are to a certain extent supported by ICT
[14,29,30]. De Miranda Santo et al. [14] for instance
presented a study on nanotechnology to show text mining
as a valuable tool in identifying trends. The results of the text
mining analysis were made available to follow on methods,
mainly expert opinions or workshops. Skulimowski [30]
developed a knowledge fusion and decision support system
tailored to manage information on future social and techno-
logical trends. In an attempt to support their foresight
activities, the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories introduced a
scouting tool for weak signal scanning, an idea collection tool
and a platform for hosting and facilitating strategic discus-
sions around foresight topics [29]. The idea collection tool
and the scouting tool are linked to each other via text mining
algorithms and if a project team enters a new idea, the scouting
tool provides information on related developments and trends
[29].
It seems that the ICT-based combination and seamless
integration of foresight methods is very hard to achieve. This
can be partly explained by the fact that many methods are
difficult to combine. Additionally, foresight projects are unique
and require a method combination tailored to the specific needs
of the project. This makes it nearly impossible to simply reuse
existing solutions for other application areas.
2.3. Reusing results of foresight activities
In order to accelerate the foresight process, foresight
support systems should retain and make available relevant
information used in an earlier foresight activity for current
and future activities. In order to (re)use the information
stored in shared knowledge databases for different foresight
94 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
methods, common formats need to be established [9]. Two
general approaches can be identified: institutional standards
(e.g. [29,30]) or industry standards (e.g. [13]) for data storage
and retrieval. As it is usually more costly and time-consuming
to develop an individual internal database, the use of third
party databases is a popular choice. In the latter case
however, the quality of data is often unknown. Markmann
et al. [16] conducted a comprehensive review of existing
trend database concepts to identify state-of-the-art trend
databases for their project CoMo. They analyzed such trend
database providers as Z_punkt, FutureManagement Group,
TrendONE, Shaping Tomorrow, TechCast, iKnow, TrendWiki,
and Trendwatching.com with regard to data quality, cooper-
ation within the project community, linking mechanisms and
incentive systems for users [16]. According to Markmann
et al. [16] there are two main types of data. The first is based
on input from experts and researchers, while the second is
based on the active participation of user communities. Each has
its disadvantages: In the first case, there is no way of knowing
how reliable the data are, since they originate from unknown
experts, and data generation is opaque. In the second, data are
generated and revised by the community and these approaches
need control mechanisms to ensure the quality of contribu-
tions, and incentive mechanisms to promote active participa-
tion [16]. In both cases, the data quality is unknown and
the data format is given. So it seems reasonable and necessary
that foresight projects which rely on specific and diverse sets of
input data develop their own individual internal database.
2.4. Collaborative decision-making
Mackay and Metcalfe [37] argue that the accuracy of
forecasting increases when different groups with differing
perspectives work together. Generally foresight activities
involve a number of different stakeholders working collabora-
tively [3840]. The coordination of numerous participants
oftentimes geographically dispersed means the foresight
process becomes a complex and time-consuming undertaking
[2]. In their summary of the first European conference on
strategic foresight held in December 2007 in Berlin, Germany,
Rohrbeck and Gemnden [41] identified the need to develop
collaborative foresight tools as a fundamental need in
facilitating collaboration between different stakeholders. These
tools should allow experts to collaboratively discuss, assess and
interpret foresight activity results [41]. The evolution of
information and communication technologies such as e-mail,
World Wide Web and videoconference has made it also
feasible to support foresight activities via the Internet [9]. In
an international Delphi study, which aimed to identify future
priorities as an input for a governmental action plan, Hilbert
et al. [42] highlighted the potential of online tools to facilitate
participation in resource-scarce developing countries.
In summary, foresight support system should be able to
offer web-based support for group voting and summarize the
collaborative results. Different techniques like analytical model-
ing, morphological analysis, scenarios, multicriteria methods
or simulation can be implemented to support collaborative
problem-solving [1921]. Additionally, foresight support sys-
tems should provide different techniques like interactive advice
or consistency analysis to ensure coherent and consistent expert
judgments [9].
3. The RAHS system of the German Federal Armed Forces
3.1. Problem identication and system objectives
Security-related future analysis is a core task within the
strategic planning of the German Federal Armed Forces. In this
context, the German Federal Armed Forces have to ensure
the transparency, intelligibility and verifiability of strategic
foresight activities and results. To date, strategic foresight has
been implemented collaboratively by German Federal Armed
Forces representatives and geographically dispersed external
experts. Foresight activities were not strongly supported by
ICT; consequently, the strategic foresight process was complex,
time-consuming and expensive.
The current situation highlights the need for the German
Federal Armed Forces to introduce a foresight support system
to accelerate and improve foresight activities. Between 2007
and 2009, the German Federal Armed Forces conducted a
comprehensive requirements analysis and assessed various
existing software solutions. Finding that these failed to meet
the specified requirements, they initiated the so called Risk
Assessment and Horizon Scanning project (RAHS) to design,
implement and test a web-based collaborative strategic
foresight system by the end of 2013.
The overarching objective of the RAHS project was to
create a software system that offers a wide range of foresight
methods integrated into a seamless foresight process cover-
ing individual and collaborative methods. The system had to
provide project management functionalities and a database
to store the results of all foresight activities. Furthermore,
internal decision-makers, external experts and partners from
other organizations had to be able to collaborate in strategic
foresight projects both on a continuous and on a temporary
basis. Geographically distributed project participants had
to be able to present, discuss and share content, as well as
results, in a Web 2.0 environment.
3.2. System design and development
After defining user needs and, thus, the specifications for
the system based on users' experiences with other platforms,
like the project website of the EU research project iKnow
Interconnecting Knowledge, nine functional units were imple-
mented: active projects, method configurator, sources collec-
tion, trend database, factor database, scenario world, projects
archive, trend radar and yellow pages (Table 1).
The next sections show how these functional units are
related to the previously discussed requirements.
3.2.1. Rules of order in foresight processes
The RAHS process consists of the phases research, analysis,
projection, implication, communication and monitoring. Each
phase is backed up by different methods, which are categorized
and described and have dependencies among each other.
The system supports projects including groups and individual
project members plus roles within a project like project manager,
project administrator and project contributor. Contributors can
be differentiated by method or by process. This allows the
integration of external experts for dedicated project phases
without giving access to the entire data set. The configuration of
each project is implemented by the functional unit active projects.
 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104 95

Table 1
RAHS functional units.

Functional unit Description

Active projects In the active project area, all currently active (running) projects can be accessed (depending on the access rights of an individual
user). New projects can be created here, participants can be managed and the methods used within a project can be configured.
Within an active project the system guides project participants through the methods and displays the active tasks within a method.
Furthermore project participants can access the results of already finalized methods. An overall project workflow provides an
overview on all methods used within the project and details like project description, research question(s), expected results, other
participants etc.
Method configurator The method configurator is the toolbox and, thus, the central element of the RAHS system. It contains all methods incorporated into
the system. Not all of them are fully software-supported, but all methods are explained and supplemented by an instruction and/or
template.
Sources collection All sources, such as links, articles, news or reports relevant to futures studies in general or supporting a specific project, can be filed,
tagged, described and searched within the sources collection module.
Trend database All trends generated from ongoing and finalized projects are stored in the trend database. Trends can be searched by name, driver,
projection, geographical range, etc.
The RAHS system facilitates the continuous updating of all stored trends, and the system monitors the evolution of any changes in a
given trend, enhancing early warning mechanisms.
Factor database This functional unit serves as a database of all factors generated within a project (mostly scenario projects). Once established,
factors can be reused in other projects.
Scenario world Scenarios created within projects using scenario methods are systematically filed in the so called scenario world, offering every
user the option of accessing scenarios generated by others and using results for their own projects. The scenarios are filed as
morphological boxes, so that they can easily be linked to the scenario monitoring method, which supports early warning
mechanisms.
Projects archive The projects archive contains all finalized projects. In accordance with the principles of knowledge-sharing and best practice, users
within RAHS can search for and retrieve data from these projects.
Trend radar Trend radar is a graphical representation of a selected set of trends from the Trend database. Trends can be analyzed by time
horizon, uncertainty, impact, geographical relevance, STEEP/V sector, etc.
Yellow pages The yellow pages module provides a list of all users in the RAHS community and their contact details. Experts on various topics can
be identified and invited to contribute to a project.

3.2.2. Combination and integration of foresight methods
The functional unit method configurator contains all fore-
sight methods offered by the RAHS system. The selection
of these foresight methods was based on a comprehensive
review of the literature and scanning of internationally applied
foresight methods from, for example, Z_punkt Foresight
Toolbox [43], the JRC Online Foresight Guide [44] and the HSC
Foresight Toolkit [45]. More than 150 foresight methods were
identified. Many are similar in their approach or are the
same but known under different names. The methods were
consolidated and clustered into similar groups to reduce the
number of redundant or very similar methods. The remaining
39 methods were then allocated to the different phases of
the foresight process, categorized according to their level of
collaboration and the knowledge base required (adopted from
Popper's [36] attributes interaction, expertise and evidence). In
order to combine the 39 foresight methods, suitable and
compatible input and output methods were identified. In the
first prototype of RAHS 18 methods were ICT-supported and
implemented within the RAHS system. Currently, 21 methods
are not supported by ICT, but they are included in the system
and users can download templates. Table 2 provides an
overview of all 39 methods available in the RAHS system.
In the RAHS system, each method can be combined
with other methods and the system provides the necessary
background on the effort and time required to obtain results
from an individual method. References and further documents
like templates or manuals are stored in the functional unit
sources collection and allow for the fast adoption of any of the
methods, even by inexperienced users. The method configurator
also assists the user to select suitable methods within a newly
created foresight project. The project manager can choose out
of three options when selecting methods for a newly created
project: The first follows the foresight process being implement-
ed (research, analysis, projection, implication, communication
and monitoring). One or more methods can be selected for each
phase of the process. The second is a questionnaire pointing the
user to methods that might best suit his/her requirements (e.g.
Do you want to use a data-driven or expert-based process?;
Do you want to enclose creativity workshop methods?, etc.).
The third option offers two pre-defined method configurations
which seamlessly integrate pre-selected ICT-supported methods
for scenario-based future exploration projects and trend-based
future exploration projects (Fig. 2). The pre-defined method
configuration allows inexperienced project managers to quick
and easy setup a solid set of methods to address common areas
of future research.
3.2.3. Reuse of foresight activity results
Every foresight project generates data objects like trends,
factors, risks or scenarios, for instance. The system provides the
following databases for the reuse of existing data in other
projects: trend database, factor database, scenario world, and
project archive. Data objects can be searched, filtered and
selected by multiple criteria like country, impact, time horizon
or uncertainty. Data within the platform can be classified into
public and private. The public results can be viewed by all
registered users or by all users within a project and may serve
as input for other projects. The private results can only be
accessed and processed by a restricted group.
3.2.4. Collaborative decision-making
The RAHS system is browser-based and incorporates Web
2.0 features and collaboration functionalities within methods
and within foresight projects. Most of the functional units
allow for commenting and/or rating. Data (e.g. a trend or a
 96
Table 2
Overview of methods available in RAHS [24,46].

Foresight method Process phase Collaboration level IT support Knowledge base Top 3 input methods Top 3 output methods

C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104

Actor analysis Analysis Low Yes Data Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Gaming
Expert knowledge Seven questions Trend projection
Survey Explorative scenario construction
Backcasting Implication Average No Expert knowledge Trend projection Scenario mentor workshop
Explorative scenario construction Scenario writing
Visioning Future news
Brainstorming Research Average Yes Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/Va
Delphi
Actor analysis
Brainwriting Research Average No Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Explorative scenario construction
Analysis Driver analysis by STEEP/V Driver analysis by STEEP/V
Projection Actor analysis Scenario writing
Capability matrix Implication Low No Expert knowledge Trend projection Trend report
Visioning Gaming
Roadmapping Future news
Cross impact analysis Analysis Average Yes Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Uncertainty analysis
Actor analysis Explorative scenario construction
Roadmapping
Decision matrix Implication Average Yes Expert knowledge Roadmapping Gaming
Explorative scenario construction Strategic option evaluation
Delphi Research High Yes Expert knowledge Open space Driver analysis by STEEP/V
Analysis Actor analysis Scenario writing
Projection Seven questions Future news
Driver analysis by STEEP/V Analysis Average Yes Data Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Trend projection
Visioning
Survey
Brainwriting
Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Analysis Low Yes Data Driver analysis by STEEP/V
Actor analysis
Explorative scenario construction
Expert interviews Analysis Average No Expert knowledge Survey Trend projection
Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Roadmapping
Seven questions Trend report
Explorative scenario construction Projection Average Yes Expert knowledge Impact uncertainty analysis Scenario writing
Cross impact analysis Scenario monitoring
Actor analysis Strategic option evaluation
Fifth scenario Implication Average No Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Scenario writing
Future news
Scenario mentor workshop
Foresight method

Process phase Collaboration IT support Knowledge base Top 3 input methods Top 3 output methods
level

Five future glasses Analysis High No Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Future conference
Survey Trend projection
Seven questions Visioning
Future conference Projection High No Expert knowledge Actor analysis Capability matrix
Survey SWOT analysis
Visioning
Future factory workshop Projection High No Expert knowledge Trend projection Future news
Implication Actor analysis Scenario writing
Visioning
Future news Communication Average No Data Backcasting Scenario monitoring
Expert knowledge Strategic option evaluation
Fifth scenario
Future wheel Analysis High No Expert knowledge Brainwriting Trend projection
Implication Brainstorming Visioning
Trend projection Future news

C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104

Gaming Projection High No Expert knowledge Actor analysis Future news
Implication Explorative scenario construction Scenario writing
Impact uncertainty analysis Analysis Average Yes Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Explorative scenario construction
Actor analysis Roadmapping
Cross impact analysis
Moderated expert panel Analysis High No Expert knowledge Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Delphi
Survey Future conference
Brainwriting
Open space Analysis High No Expert knowledge Actor analysis SWOT analysis
Survey
Plausibility matrix Implication Average Yes Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Scenario monitoring
Future news
Robustness test Scenario writing
Roadmapping Projection Low Yes Data Driver analysis by STEEP/V Capability matrix
Expert knowledge SWOT analysis Decision matrix
Actor analysis SWOT analysis
Robustness test Implication Average No Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Plausibility matrix
Scenario monitoring
Fifth scenario Scenario writing
Seven questions Research Average No Expert knowledge Driver analysis by STEEP/V
Delphi
Future conference
Scenario mentor workshop Communication Average No Expert knowledge Fifth scenario Scenario monitoring
Strategic option evaluation
Robustness test
Scenario monitoring Monitoring Low Yes Data Explorative scenario construction
Fifth scenario
Windtunneling

(continued on next page)

97
 98
Table 2 (continued)

Foresight method Process phase Collaboration level IT support Knowledge base Top 3 input methods Top 3 output methods

Scenario writing Communication Average No Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Scenario monitoring
Fifth scenario Scenario mentor workshop
Robustness test

C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104

Strategic option evaluation Implication Average Yes Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Scenario monitoring
Fifth scenario Future news
Robustness test Scenario mentor workshop
Survey Research Average Yes Expert knowledge Driver analysis by STEEP/V
Cross impact analysis
Impact uncertainty analysis
SWOT analysis Analysis Average No Data Environmental scanning by STEEP/V Roadmapping
Implication Roadmapping Trend projection
Trend projection Decision matrix
Trend monitoring Monitoring Average Yes Data Trend report
Capability matrix
SWOT analysis
Trend projection Projection Low Yes Data Driver analysis by STEEP/V Capabilities matrix
Future wheel SWOT analysis
Actor analysis Decision matrix
Trend report Communication Average Yes Expert knowledge Trend projection Trend monitoring
Capabilities matrix
Backcasting
Visioning Projection High No Expert knowledge Brainwriting Backcasting
Future wheel SWOT analysis
Five future glasses Scenario writing
Weak signal scanning Research Average Yes Expert knowledge Expert interviews Delphi
Brainstorming Actor analysis
Explorative scenario construction
Windtunneling Implication Average No Expert knowledge Explorative scenario construction Scenario monitoring
Strategic option evaluation Scenario mentor workshop
World caf Implication High No Expert knowledge Trend projection Scenario mentor workshop
Roadmapping Trend report
Explorative scenario construction Strategic option evaluation
a
Social, technological, economic, environmental/ecological, political and value-based issues.
 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
Methods used in the scenario- RAHS foresight process
based future exploration
projects
Environmental scanning
by STEEP/V
Impact uncertainty
analysis
Explorative scenario
construction
Strategic option
evaluation
Communication
Scenario writing
Scenario monitoring
Fig. 2. Pre-defined method configurations.
factor) generated by another user or derived from an external
source can be enriched by own content, and sources and
methods within the system can be rated, in order to inform
other users about previous experiences with the method
concerned. Algorithms to aggregate the collaborative input
including an analysis of the variances thereof are also
implemented into RAHS.
It was agreed from the outset that only users accredited
by the German Federal Armed Forces Future Analysis Section
would be allowed to access the system. In practice, this
means that accreditation will be a formality for all individuals
and institutions with a professional interest in foresight and
exploring the future (public institutions, research institutes,
national and international partners and companies), provid-
ed that they agree to allow other users of the system to access
results obtained with the aid of the RAHS system (a set of
scenarios, for example). The contact details of all registered
users are provided by the functional unit yellow pages.
3.3. Demonstration of the RAHS system
This section details the implementation of the pre-defined
method configuration for scenario-based future exploration
projects and demonstrates how the selected methods play
together. The implementation of the selected six methods
below stand as representatives for all ICT-supported methods
within RAHS.
3.3.1. Method 1: environmental scanning by STEEP/V
This method identifies, analyzes and sorts factors which
could have an impact on the topic of interest. Generally
speaking, some factors will already have been identified
during a preliminary brainstorming session or in the course
of other projects which are stored in the factor database. The
RAHS system provides a morphological structure where
participants can add or remove factors in the STEEP/V (social,
technological, economic, environmental/ecological, political
and value-based issues) categories. Participants can create
new factors, add descriptions and/or comments to them and
99
Methods used in the trend-
based future exploration
projects
Environmental scanning
Research by STEEP/V
Driver analysis by
Analysis
STEEP/V
Projection --
Implication Future wheel
Trend report
Monitoring Trend monitoring
existing factors, and also drag and drop factors from one
category to another.
3.3.2. Method 2: impact uncertainty analysis
This method is used within the project to identify key
factors. All factors identified, structured and described in
Method 1 are evaluated and sorted by their uncertainty and
impact on the topic being researched. Factors with high
uncertainty and impact are then singled out as key factors to
be used in Method 3.
To allow for collaboration and to avoid biased evaluations
within workshop settings the RAHS system provides every
project participant with an individual matrix (the axes are
impact and uncertainty). The RAHS system aggregates all input
and displays the aggregated values. The project manager role
allows the display of all participant evaluations: a dot within
the matrix shown in Fig. 3 defines the average of all ratings. By
mouse-over the dot splits into as many dots as there are
evaluating participants and all other dots fade out. By this
procedure the project manager can immediately figure out the
individual evaluations in a visual kind of way.
Fig. 3 shows the aggregated input of all participants. The
colors indicate the level of consistency within individual
evaluations. The red dots indicate factors with a low level of
consistency, and those with a high level are indicated by green
dots. The project manager can run additional methods, like
workshops or mind maps, to discuss factors with a low level of
consistency and thus finalize the evaluation of environmental
factors within the uncertainty matrix.
3.3.3. Method 3: explorative scenario construction
The first step in this method is the development of
projections referring to possible future states of each key
factor. The RAHS system automatically transfers all key factors
and invites participants in a given project to develop projec-
tions for each key factor. These are collected and aggregated
manually by the project manager. The result is a classification
scheme including all key factors and their projections. The
RAHS system then automatically creates a consistency matrix
100 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
Fig. 3. Collaborative impact uncertainty matrix.
based on these projections. All participants can evaluate
pairs of projections on a scale of 1 to 5, in accordance with
their level of consistency. Fig. 4 shows an evaluated consistency
matrix. The projection pair 3A and 1C have the highest level of
consistency while 2C and 1C have the lowest.
Fig. 4 uses the same color coding as Fig. 3, i.e. red cells (3C
and 2C, for example) indicate low, orange cells (2A and 1D, for
example) medium, and green cells (2A and 1A, for example) a
high level of agreement among the participants. Here too,
the project manager can use additional methods on evaluations
where participants differ a lot in their opinion.
The project manager triggers an algorithm based on the
consolidated input of the consistency values, to calculate the
scenarios. The greater the number of projections, the greater
the exponential growth of the calculation runtime. Once the
scenarios have been calculated, the remaining scenarios can be
clustered on the basis of a previously defined consistency
threshold and then visualized as a three-dimensional diagram,
to interpret intuitively the proximity of scenario clusters to
each other (see Fig. 5). Similar scenario clusters are identified
using the same color code. The distances between scenario
clusters indicate how much (or how little) they differ from one
another.
In a workshop setting, three to five highly consistent
scenarios (ideally displaying a broad variety of futures) are
selected as a basis for the methods below.
3.3.4. Method 4: strategic option evaluation
This method is used to assess the selected scenarios and
develop strategies for each of them. In the RAHS system, a
strategy is made up of a number of different fields of action,
each consisting of a set of strategic options defined by the
participants in a workshop setting. One example of a field of
action could be Army development, with three strategic
options: Western armies increase in size, Western armies
maintain their current size and Western armies substan-
tially reduce their size. The RAHS system includes a
graphical interface enabling participants to add or remove
fields of action and strategic options. Selecting one strategic
option for each field of action creates a strategy, and can
also be done within a workshop setting. Once developed,
strategies are mapped against the selected scenarios in
the strategy evaluation matrix. Here, too, evaluation can be
carried out collaboratively. Participants indicate their per-
ceived strategy-scenario fit on a scale of 1 to 5. The evaluation
results are then aggregated for each strategy and each scenario.
A good strategy-scenario fit indicates a highly robust strategy.
The robustness of each strategy and the threat linked to each
scenario are the criteria which determine whether decision-
makers choose a single highly robust strategy or a combination
of strategic options.
3.3.5. Method 5: scenario writing
In the RAHS system, this method is supported by
templates and best practices. All data and analyses within
one project (including the selected scenarios and the
corresponding strategies) can be exported into various
formats (e.g. Microsoft Word or PowerPoint). Based on
the exported data selected project participants can create
 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
Fig. 4. Consolidated consistency matrix.
narrative essays. The results of this method are uploaded into
the RAHS system.
3.3.6. Method 6: scenario monitoring
Factors and their projections can change over time, as
project participants modify their perspectives or quantitative
data change projections. The RAHS system detects such
changes and informs the project manager, who can then
run the scenario process again in order to take account of
the new data and ensure that the projected futures remain
up-to-date.
Fig. 5. 3D diagram of scenario clusters.
101
3.4. Lessons learnt
The RAHS system was used in three very different projects:
1. Peace Operations 2025: 38 geographically distributed experts
from academia, research institutes, politics and the military
were involved in the development of future peace-keeping
operations scenarios. Three workshops were held on three
continents over a period of 18 months. The project aimed
to enhance the debate about future strategies and opera-
tional requirements by presenting collaboratively developed
peace-keeping operations scenarios to policy-makers and
those likely to be actively involved in such operations [47].
2. Air Traffic Growth, Energy and the Environment 2040: In
this German foresight project, which lasted for 4 months, 18
experts from industry and academia created and analyzed
possible scenarios with regard to the future of air transport,
how new energy sources would be used by the industry and
the kind of infrastructure changes that would be required
in order to use them. Finally, the consequences for airlines,
aircraft manufacturers and airports were derived from
aggregated results [48].
3. The Future of Mobility Scenarios for the United States in 2030:
This study of future scenarios with regard to mobility in the
United States in 2030 was being conducted by the Institute
for Mobility Research. 37 experts from Germany and the
United States, three members of the Institute for Mobility
Research and seven members of the RAND Corporation
have been working on this study between January 2012 and
August 2013. The results of the study support policy-makers,
businesses, and individuals by helping them to make more
informed mobility decisions [49].
102 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
All three project managers and all participants have been
interviewed by experts in order to identify the advantages,
disadvantages and potentials for improvement of the RAHS
foresight support system. A summary of the interviews and
the lessons learnt appear below:
3.4.1. Rules of order in foresight processes
The participants in all three projects commented that the
RAHS system's integrated data management, coupled with
trouble-free project configuration and management greatly
facilitated use of the system. The system was also praised for
its clarity, intuitiveness and time efficiency. The participants
found that the results were fully traceable at every stage of the
projects and that the foresight process was both transparent
and sustainable. A further lesson learnt was that the concept of
rights and roles which distinguishes shared data from private
data was easy to implement and that participants trusted
the German Federal Armed Forces and their role as a convener
in the storage of project data. In other environments, where
competitors work together on future scenarios, it might be
very difficult to find a trustworthy convener. For example, all
companies in the automotive industry are interested in finding
out how road traffic in Germany will develop in the medium
and long term. Development of such scenarios could be carried
out collaboratively, while the interpretation of the resulting
scenarios and the formulation of individual strategies could
be left to each individual company. A prerequisite for such
a collaborative foresight project would be the creation of a
neutral, independent entity to operate the system.
Many participants mentioned that the communication of
the data privacy options is not clear enough. Furthermore
some participants mentioned that intuitive tutorial compo-
nents like online videos, FAQs and one-pagers would be very
helpful to quickly understand the system, avoid user failures
and become productive quickly.
3.4.2. Combination and integration of foresight methods
Reactions to documentation of the methods, in particular
the different templates for the workshop-based methods, were
very positive, because it ensured a consistent flow of informa-
tion across each project. However, in the Peace Operations
study and the Future of Mobility study some participants were
still struggling to understand the applied foresight methods,
especially the more sophisticated of them, such as explorative
scenario construction. The participants suggested that advance
training in using the applied methods would have solved those
problems. Some participants also struggled with the variety of
methods. Even experienced foresight experts had trouble
in identifying methods they would like to apply on a certain
research question. Future research should focus on this issue
by providing useful recommendation mechanisms and/or best
practices.
With regard to the pre-defined method configurations
(in trend-based future exploration projects and scenario-based
future exploration projects), the seamless integration of methods
was reliable throughout the projects in that results from one
method could be imported and reused automatically for other
methods. Although, in theory, fully virtual project teams can
work together online, experience from all three projects has
shown that some evaluation tasks still require direct human
interaction (in a moderated workshop session, for instance).
3.4.3. Reusing results of foresight activities
As far as data processing and documentation are concerned,
the RAHS system proved that usability, shared databases
and data storage and retrieval tools are essential for high
productivity.
One principal issue in all three projects was data security.
Aside from non-functional security features like https, strong
passwords, user activity monitoring or diverse restrictions in
the data export, only registered users can access RAHS and
data can be classified into public and private. Additionally,
the RAHS system is hosted within a secure environment and,
as stated earlier, operated by the German Federal Armed
Forces, so the level of trust in the system is generally high.
Nevertheless, many participants have suggested that the
results of strategy development and assessment should not
be documented in RAHS.
3.4.4. Collaborative decision-making
The Institute for Mobility Research highlighted the user-
friendliness of the software and the possibility of real-time
information sharing within a context of widely geographically
distributed participants. The participants' uninterrupted access
to the projects resulted in pro-active collaborative decision-
making in all phases. Some participants mentioned that the
aggregation of the results was unclear to them. They provided
their individual judgment within a method and later on got the
aggregated results as basis for the next method. They struggled
to identify their individual input as RAHS does not provide a
transparent trace for users on how data was created and
who/what kind of algorithm decided on the result of a method.
Only project managers can see the full picture. Further research
should investigate, if this level of transparency causes barriers
of participation.
Some participants mentioned that they would be inter-
ested in providing their input on the go using mobile devices
like tablets or smartphones. RAHS is at the moment not
offering mobile apps or special mobile websites this as well
leaves room for improvement.
A rather non ICT-related issue was brought up in the
Air Traffic Growth study: It was felt that there were too few
experts from industry and too many academics, and that
the scenarios created had been dominated by the input of
participants with the same background. This issue should be
tackled by the manager of each foresight project.
3.4.5. General learnings
There was some feedback centering on the fact that any
would-be user of the system must have a permanent Internet
connection. Although this did not usually pose a problem in
Germany or the USA, it did prove to be a significant issue for the
Peace Operations 2025 study workshops in Addis Ababa. When
foresight projects are conducted in countries or regions with a
defective Internet infrastructure, offline functionalities should
be provided.
Furthermore, the input of unstructured data was challeng-
ing and could have led to restricted creativity, thus biasing
the openness of a foresight project. The combination of fully
ICT-supported methods and methods based on templates was
challenging as there are still media breaks and issues with the
variety of operating systems and desktop software (and the
 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
different versions of the installed software). This issue requires
further research.
While on the topic of workshops, the RAHS system
made it possible to reduce the number of them in each of
the three projects, because participants were able to collect
more data individually, and were therefore able to concen-
trate on discussing deviant results in the consolidated workshop
evaluations, rather than identifying them. Some of the partici-
pants in the Peace Operations study felt that, even with the
support of the RAHS system, the time frame for it (13 months)
was too long, because conditions change considerably in such
a long period. They advocated a much shorter organizational
setup time frame for future projects.
4. Summary and concluding remarks
The main purpose of this article was to demonstrate the
development and implementation of a foresight support system
tailored for the German Federal Armed Forces. On the basis of the
German Federal Armed Forces' requirement analysis as well as a
literature review, the authors suggest that the following issues
should be taken into consideration when designing and imple-
menting a foresight support system: a comprehensive foresight
process with an appropriate set of integrated foresight methods;
a shared knowledge base, and collaborative decision-making.
The RAHS system specifies a foresight process adopted from
Horton [31], Sutherland and Woodroof [32] and Voros [33], and
offers 39 foresight methods. Further methods can be added
within the modular architecture. A method configurator assists
users to select suitable methods in three ways: (1) In accordance
with the foresight process phases: research, analysis, projection,
implication, communication, monitoring. (2) A questionnaire,
which uses the pre-defined classification of foresight methods
adopted from Popper's [36] attributes of interaction, expertise
and evidence. (3) Two pre-defined foresight processes. In future,
more standard method combinations will be incorporated into
the RAHS system.
18 foresight methods are fully ICT-supported, including
impact uncertainty analysis, explorative scenario construction
and strategic option evaluation. The greatest achievement was
the implementation of methods in the implication phase. A
review found that the system's ICT-supported methods of
strategy development and assessment are extremely rare in
the foresight support system area. Building a strategy based on
the RAHS system requires a solid belief in the methods and
algorithms employed. Thus, the results of the implication phase
give directions for strategy implementation, although they
cannot and, indeed, will not, replace the strategy management
of organizations altogether.
The system supports foresight in different ways: The
exchange of information and results, the possibility of collab-
orative evaluation, and the consolidation function, as well as the
possibility of aggregating individual results. In line with Mackay
and Metcalfe [37] we found that collaborative decision-making
using different methods clearly created better results compared
to individual expert opinions. Depending on the kind of project
and the number of participants, the project manager should
decide how many if any should contribute to a dedicated
method. Additionally, participating experts should be drawn
from a variety of fields, in order to avoid one-sided views of
problems.
103
Since evaluation of the RAHS system was based on only three
foresight projects, where all the participants were familiar with
strategic foresight and the methods used by it, what is needed
now is the comparison of results achieved by existing foresight
support systems with the results achieved by the RAHS system.
Generally speaking, the implementation of the foresight support
system components proposed by Banuls and Salmeron [9] has
been proven: The results are transparent and the foresight
projects are executed more efficiently due to the integrated
workflow and project management, which facilitate rules
of order in foresight processes, the RAHS databases (factor
database, trend database, scenario world and project archive)
enabled the reuse of foresight results and collaborative features
allow for more accurate and diverse input, including a structured
consolidation process. Thus, the RAHS system is not only a tool
for the foresight process itself, but also allows for the continuous
and collaborative development of future knowledge.
References
[1] R. Rohrbeck, J.O. Schwarz, The value contribution of strategic foresight:
Insights from an empirical study of large European companies, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (8) (2013) 15931606.
[2] B. Rasmussen, P.D. Andersen, K. Borch, Managing transdisciplinarity in
strategic foresight, Creat. Innov. Manag. 19 (1) (2010) 3746.
[3] T. Heger, R. Rohrbeck, Strategic foresight for collaborative exploration of
new business fields, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (5) (2012) 819831.
[4] B. Johansen, Get There Early: Sensing the Future to Compete in the
Present, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2007.
[5] R. Kreibich, Zukunftsforschung zur Nachhaltigkeit Forschungsfelder,
Forschungsfrderung, Forschungspolitik, Working Paper 34/2009,
Institut fr Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung, Berlin, 2009.
[6] P. Destatte, Foresight: a major tool in tackling sustainable develop-
ment, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77 (9) (2010) 15751587.
[7] A.S. K. Pang, Futures 2.0: rethinking the discipline, Foresight 12 (1) (2010)
520.
[8] W. Mittelstaedt, Evolutionre Zukunftsforschung, in: R. Popp, E.
Schll (Eds.), Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung: Beitrge
aus Wissenschaft und Praxis, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
2009, pp. 117128.
[9] V. Banuls, J. Salmeron, Scope and design issues in foresight support
systems, Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 7 (4) (2011) 338351.
[10] J. Keller, H.a. von der Gracht, The influence of information and
communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes
results from a Delphi survey, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 85 (2014)
8192.
[11] J. Schatzmann, R. Schfer, F. Eichelbaum, Foresight 2.0 definition,
overview & evaluation, Eur. J. Futur. Res. 1 (1) (2013).
[12] C. Markmann, I.-L. Darkow, H. von der Gracht, A Delphi-based risk
analysis identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain
security in a multi-stakeholder environment, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 80 (9) (2013) 18151833.
[13] M. Bengisu, R. Nekhili, Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid
of science and technology databases, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73
(7) (2006) 835844.
[14] M. de Miranda Santo, G.M. Coelho, D.M. dos Santos, L.F. Filho, Text mining
as a valuable tool in foresight exercises: a study on nanotechnology,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (8) (2006) 10131027.
[15] T.U. Daim, G. Rueda, H. Martin, P. Gerdsri, Forecasting emerging
technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (8) (2006) 9811012.
[16] C. Markmann, P. Ecken, H.A. von der Gracht, I.-L. Darkow, G. De
Lorenzis, E. Foltin, D. Hartmann, N. Helfenbein, M. Mnnich, C. Stillings,
Trend database design for effectively managing foresight knowledge a
sophisticated FTA content base architecture to enable foresight processes,
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology
Analysis, Seville, 2011.
[17] M. Durst, S. Stang, L. Ster, F. Edelmann, Kollaboratives Trendmanagement,
HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 273(47), 2010, pp. 7886.
[18] N. Thom, Foresight in Innovation Networks: The EIT Innovation Radar
example, 4th ISPIM Innovation Symposium, Wellington, New Zealand,
2011, pp. 114.
[19] M. Godet, The art of scenarios and strategic planning tools and pitfalls,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 65 (1) (2000) 322.
104 C. Durst et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 97 (2015) 91104
[20] A.L. Porter, Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field
and new methods, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 71 (3) (2004) 287303.
[21] D. Mietzner, G. Reger, Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches
for strategic foresight, Int. J. Technol. Intell. Plann. 1 (2) (2005) 220239.
[22] V.A. Zeithaml, R.N. Bolton, J. Deighton, T.L. Keiningham, K.N. Lemon, J.A.
Petersen, Forward-looking focus: can firms have adaptive foresight?
J. Serv. Res. 9 (2) (2006) 168183.
[23] R. Rohrbeck, H.G. Gemnden, Strategische Frhaufklrung Modell
zur Integration von markt- und technologieseitiger Frhaufklrung
Einleitung, Vorausschau und Technologieplanung, 2006, pp. 159176.
[24] Abteilung Zukunftsentwicklung und Langfristige Sicherheitsvorsorge,
http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/!ut/p/c4/RcexDYAwDAXRWVjA7
unYAmiQA1bylWAiYmB96NA173jmL5MbURyHSeGRpxV9eCjsd6SGNe
mZFN7qUeDIFC7btD2aTqpF7LLYZHeS4IryndrvBVzz0L0etz5M/(Accessed
July 17, 2013).
[25] K. Burmeister, K. Jannek, Foresight im Mittelstand Ergebnisse der Studie
2008 und Ergnzung 2011, http://www.z-punkt.de/fileadmin/be_user/D_
News/D_2011_01_Newsletter/BMBF.pdf(Accessed March 05, 2013).
[26] C. Markmann, H.A. von der Gracht, J. Keller, R. Kroehl, Collaborative
foresight as a means to face future risks an innovative platform
conception, Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012, pp. 15.
[27] B. Moos, Managing acquired knowledge from different network
partners: the role of knowledge management systems, Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Leipzig,
Germany, 2013, pp. 737751.
[28] E. Amanatidou, K. Guy, Interpreting foresight process impacts:
steps towards the development of a framework conceptualising the
dynamics of foresight systems, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)
(2008) 539557.
[29] R. Rohrbeck, N. Thom, H. Arnold, IT tools for foresight: the
integrated insight and response system of Deutsche Telekom
Innovation Laboratories, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 97 (2014)
115126.
[30] A. Skulimowski, A foresight support system to manage knowledge on
information society evolution, Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference Social Informatics, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012, pp. 246259.
[31] Horton, A simple guide to successful foresight, Foresight 1 (1) (1999) 59.
[32] W.J. Sutherland, H.J. Woodroof, The need for environmental horizon
scanning, Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (10) (2009) 523527.
[33] J. Voros, A generic foresight process framework, Foresight 5 (3) (2003)
1021.
[34] P. Bishop, A. Hines, T. Collins, The current state of scenario develop-
ment: an overview of techniques, Foresight 9 (1) (2007) 525.
[35] P. Durance, M. Godet, Scenario building: uses and abuses, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 77 (9) (2010) 14881492.
[36] R. Popper, How are foresight methods selected? Foresight 10 (6)
(2008) 6289.
[37] M. Maio Mackay, M. Metcalfe, Multiple method forecasts for
discontinuous innovations, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 69 (3)
(2002) 221232.
[38] G. Tichy, The over-optimism among experts in assessment and
foresight, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 71 (4) (2004) 341363.
[39] K. Weigand, T. Flanagan, K. Dye, P. Jones, Collaborative foresight:
complementing long-horizon strategic planning, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 85 (2014) 134152.
[40] K. Kok, M. van Vliet, I. Brlund, A. Dubel, J. Sendzimir, Combining
participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development:
experiences from the SCENES project, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
78 (5) (2011) 835851.
[41] R. Rohrbeck, H. Gemnden, The road ahead for research on strategic
foresight: insights from the 1st European conference on Strategic
Foresight, 1st European Conference on Strategic Foresight, Berlin,
Germany, 2007.
[42] M. Hilbert, I. Miles, J. Othmer, Foresight tools for participative
policy-making in inter-governmental processes in developing coun-
tries: lessons learned from the eLAC Policy Priorities Delphi, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 76 (7) (2009) 880896.
[43] Z_. Punkt, Foresight toolbox, http://www.zukunft-im-mittelstand.de/
(Accessed July 13, 2013).
[44] JRC/ITPS European Comission, Description of foresight methods,
http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/methods.
htm(Accessed July 13, 2013).
[45] H. S. Center, Exploring the future: tools for strategic futures thinking,
http://hsctoolkit.bis.gov.uk/The-tools.html(Accessed July 13, 2013).
[46] Z_. Punkt, http://www.z-punkt.de/288.html(Accessed July 13, 2013).
[47] T. von Gienanth, H. Wibke, S. Kppe, Peace Operations 2025, Center for
International Peace Operations (ZIF), Berlin, 2012.
[48] N. Randt, Air traffic growth, energy and the, environment 2040, http://
www.lls.mw.tum.de/index.php?id=29(Accessed March 05, 2013).
[49] ifmo: the future of mobility scenarios for the United States in 2030,
http://www.ifmo.de/basif/pdf/projekte/Scenario_USA_web_presentation_
en.pdf Accessed March 05, 2013.
Dr Carolin Durst is an Associate Professor at the Chair of Information System II
at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. She holds a PhD in the eld of
Services Science, and her current research focuses on the application of
advanced business analytics to specic business challenges. The elds of
application comprise strategic management, marketing, and e-health. Her
research has been published in Communications of the AIS (CAIS), the
International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Manage-
ment Applications and elsewhere, including books and conference proceedings.
Dr Michael Durst obtained his doctorate at the University of Erlangen-
Nuremberg for his work on Value-oriented Management in IT Architectures.
During his time as a management consultant, he worked as a project and
program manager at various Fortune 500 companies in the elds of
innovation management, IT strategy, enterprise architecture and Enterprise
2.0. Between 2007 and 2009, Dr. Durst headed the Department for Research
and Innovations, part of the global IT division at adidas AG. Today, he is
professor of business information systems at the FOM Hochschule fr
Oekonomie und Management in Nuremberg and CEO of ITONICS GmbH.
Thomas Kolonko holds a degree in Information Systems and works for
the Planning Division of the German Federal Armed Forces. He is responsible
for the technical implementation of the integrated planning process of the
German Federal Armed Forces. Between 2006 and 2009 he was responsible
for the knowledge management system of the German Federal Armed Forces
Center for Transformation and, subsequently, for the development and
the methodology framework in the German Federal Armed Forces Future
Analysis Section. During this time he was project leader of the Risk
Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS) research and technology project.
Andreas Neef is Z_punkt's managing partner and responsible for the
innovation and Foresight processes of renowned major companies. Since the
early 1990s, he has been working as a professional future researcher and
innovation consultant. Prior to this career, he majored in information science,
philosophy, and business studies at the Free University of Berlin. In 1994, Mr
Neef founded the Vision factory, one of Germany's rst future consultancies.
Florian Greif studied mathematics and computer science and later worked as a
strategy consultant at Accenture, where he advised international Fortune 500
companies on restructuring, process management, e-commerce and IT infra-
structure issues. Having spent time in the USA, the UK, Germany, Italy and Asia, he
has helped clients in the fashion, retail, government, telecommunications,
nance, pharmaceutical, electronics and defense industries. Between 2006 and
2010, Mr Greif was Vice-President of Global IT Infrastructure at Adidas AG. There,
he managed numerous global improvement and efciency programs, while also
restructuring and realigning the IT infrastructure to incorporate innovative new
technologies. He has been COO of ITONICS since 2010.