Roy Amara identifies new directions for futures research methodology. Emphasis is placed on validation and quality criteria for futures studies, and a set of initial criteria is outlined—plausibility, reproducibility, and explicitness of values and impacts. Such criteria should be guidelines rather than formalistic straightjackets.

The current dimensions of technological innovation are analysed to provide a summary of the state of knowledge of innovation, which is then taken as a basis for recommending sensible management practices for nourishing it. Particularly important are organization, management approach and timing, with new roles for the customer, R&D laboratories and career development in the innovation management process.

Lessons Learned In the last decade or two, perhaps the most important trend in the use of futures planning (FP) tools has been the move away from methodological formalisms and doctrinaire approaches-particularly those that purport to reduce futures methods planning to a mechanistic sequence of steps or “silver bullet” solutions. The following is a summary of the evolution of the methods the Institute for the Future (IFTF) has used and some lessons we have learned.

It is rare for long-range forecasters and futurists to outlast their forecasts. When they do, they must inevitably be prepared to face questions about their track records. What most people want to know is how well one has done in terms of ‘hits’ or ‘misses’. It does little good to comment on the futility of ‘point’ forecasting—particularly for 10-year periods—or on the greater importance of identifying and monitoring critical factors that may shape a forecast. Nor does it seem to help to point out that all forecasts are based on the best currently available information and that new information will almost certainly be used to modify a forecast. So this article presents some hits and misses achieved by the Institute for the Future (IFTF) and uses the experience from these forecasts to distil some lessons learned. They are summarized as 10 do's and don'ts of forecasting and planning.

Futures research is currently in a state of abeyance and may well be approaching a critical crossroad. In order to survive it needs to dispense with its tendency to be ‘all things to all people’, dealing with almost any activity that involves the future, and define for itself a unique and synthesizing role within a larger forecasting and planning framework. The primary focus of futures research in the next decade should be in the public sector where the need is greater, however a clear separation must be maintained between its advocacy (value-driven) activities and those that are conceptual and analytical.

Many studies have concluded that the current global economy can transition from fossil fuels to be powered entirely by renewable energy. While supporting such transition, we critique analysis purporting to conclusively demonstrate feasibility. Deep uncertainties remain about whether renewables can maintain, let alone grow, the range and scale of energy services presently provided by fossil fuels. The more optimistic renewable energy studies rely upon assumptions that may be theoretically or technically plausible, but which remain highly uncertain when real-world practicalities are accounted for. This places investigation of energy-society futures squarely in the domain of post-normal science, implying the need for greater ‘knowledge humility’ when framing and interpreting the findings from quantitative modelling exercises conducted to investigate energy futures. Greater appreciation for the limits of what we can know via such techniques reveals ‘energy descent’ as a plausible post-carbon scenario. Given the fundamental dependence of all economic activity on availability of energy in appropriate forms at sufficient rates, profound changes to dominant modes of production and consumption may be required, a view marginalised when more techno-optimistic futures are assumed. Viewing this situation through the lens of ‘post-normal times’ opens avenues for response that can better support societies in navigating viable futures.

Institutional forms in the futures field should be founded on the functions to be performed. These functions are viewed in relation to the contribution of visionaries to more and better images of the future; to a family of related analytical activities aimed at enhancing intentionality and explicitness in planning and decision making; and to a variety of grass-roots movements aimed at encouraging participatory social planning. Five basic functionsgoals formulation; methods development; applications; coupling; implementation—are explored and some existing institutional forms are examined: image generators; research organisations; corporate or government planning groups; and citizen groups. These provide guidelines for the possible development of modified institutional forms and their orientation.