Collaborative Foresight Is Growing Up – But What Does It Actually Mean?

22.4.2026 Jaakko Paasi

– Over the last decade, “collaborative foresight” has quietly become a frequently used concept in futures research and practice. Across technology roadmapping, participatory scenario processes, open corporate foresight, and anticipatory governance, collaboration is everywhere. But as the concept becomes more popular, its meaning has become increasingly blurred.

In a recent article in Futures, which I wrote with Katri Valkokari and Arho Suominen, we examined how this field has developed. Drawing on more than 700 scientific publications, we set out to understand its main directions and where further work is still needed.

Many of today’s major transitions, such as climate change, artificial intelligence, energy systems and the bioeconomy, are systemic in nature. They do not sit neatly within organisational or disciplinary boundaries. Innovation increasingly takes place in networks and ecosystems rather than within single organisations.

In this context, foresight is also changing. It is no longer limited to internal analysis. It is becoming a shared process where different actors explore possible futures together and build a common understanding.

Our study points to four main research trajectories:

1. Collaborative technology foresight
   This strand typically uses methods such as roadmapping and system modelling. It offers practical tools and is methodologically rich, but this trajectory suffers from weak theory building.
2. Collaborative scenario planning
   Here, the emphasis is on participation. Methods such as Delphi are frequently used in regional planning and community contexts. These approaches support legitimacy and inclusion, though their longer-term impact is still difficult to assess.
3. Open foresight
   This trajectory connects foresight with open innovation. It focuses on collaboration between organisations and the use of diverse external knowledge. Leadership and organisational culture play an important role, while scalable approaches are still emerging.
4. Anticipatory governance
   Foresight is embedded in policy processes and societal transitions. This area is conceptually well developed, yet there is still limited evidence of its practical impact.

One of the surprises in our review was how rarely collaborative foresight is explicitly defined. We found the definition by Gattringer et al. (2017) particularly helpful:

“…a joint discussion and analysis process of various organizations concerning future developments in specific search fields.”

We agree with much of this, but see a key limitation: it overlooks individuals. Therefore, we propose a refinement:

Collaborative foresight refers to a joint discussion and analysis process among various organizations or individuals, not representing the same organization, concerning future developments within a specific search field.

This is not meant as a final definition. It is a starting point for further discussion.

Across the field, several challenges stand out:

• the need for stronger theoretical grounding
• better integration with ecosystem thinking
• tighter links to strategic decision-making
• more research on how collaborative decisions are made
• credible ways to assess long-term impact

Without progress in these areas, collaborative foresight risks remaining “interesting” rather than indispensable.

Collaborative foresight goes well beyond a toolkit. It is a developing field that touches on technology, strategy, innovation ecosystems, and public governance. At the same time, it still needs common ground, a stronger theory, and clearer proof of lasting benefit.

This was the motivation behind starting the FORECO research project (Foresight in Ecosystems): to address these research gaps and, above all, to develop practical, scalable approaches for industry as it faces major changes.

I hope our work encourages deeper discussion in the foresight community, and I welcome collaboration, critique, and debate on how to advance this field together.