Developing foresight that impacts senior management decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive research exists on the potential impacts of foresight; however, a comprehensive understanding of the factors that lead to foresight impact, particularly in influencing senior management decisions, is relatively sparse. This study addresses this by reporting on a Delphi and expert panel involving eight senior Canadian government foresight program leaders. These leaders were asked to help identify and then rate a list of factors that they felt resulted in their foresight projects impacting senior management decisions. Results suggested that factors such as foresight methodology, while leading to good foresight, do not necessarily result in senior decision-maker impact. Instead, criteria defined in this paper as the “consultants' toolkit,” such as understanding the senior decision maker's pain points and foresight managers having a strong understanding of the organization's inner workings, play a crucial role. The expert panel discussion suggested that the importance of senior management decision-making factors depends on three mediating variables: The temporal orientation of the Department, the foresight orientation of the department's senior management, and the nature of the relationship between the foresight manager and the senior decision maker .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".