foresighting for the australia-indonesia centreforesighting for the australia-indonesia centre final...

Foresighting for the Australia-Indonesia Centre Final Report to the Australia-Indonesia Centre

James Butler, Seona Meharg, Dewi Kirono, Russ Wise, Erin Bohensky, Lucy Carter, Archie Slamet (CSIRO)

October 2015

LAND AND WATER

Citation

Butler, J.R.A., Meharg, S., Kirono, D.G.C., Wise, R.M., Bohensky, E.L., Carter, L. and Slamet A. 2015.

Foresighting for the Australia-Indonesia Centre. Final Report to the Australia-Indonesia Centre.

CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra. 24 pp.

Copyright

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2015. To the extent permitted

by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be

reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements

based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information

may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must

therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and

technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants)

excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses,

damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this

publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content wherever possible. If you are having

difficulties with accessing this document please contact [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

4 | Foresighting for the Australia-Indonesia Centre

Executive summary

Context

The Australia-Indonesia Centre (AIC) was formed in 2014 to strengthen and deepen Australia-Indonesia business, government, education, research, and community links. It has the goal of ‘building greater research collaboration between Australia and Indonesia in areas of shared challenge’. In Australia, five major research partners are involved: Monash University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, the Australian National University and CSIRO. In Indonesia, there are seven partners: Institut Teknologi Bandung, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Universitas Airlangga, Universitas Gadjah Mada, the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Universitas Hasanuddin, and Universitas Indonesia.

The AIC is collaboratively researching solutions to shared national challenges in four Clusters:

Energy

Infrastructure

Agriculture and Food

Health

In 2015 a Cluster Investment Plan (CLIP) was developed for each Cluster. This was undertaken through planning workshops held in Australia and Indonesia. In November 2014, CSIRO was contracted by the AIC to assist with the Cluster planning process by applying its ‘foresighting’ method, which analysed key trends in each theme towards 2030 and beyond. The over-arching goal was ‘to support the development of CLIPs which focus on priority research areas of shared interest between Australia and Indonesia, and to promote integration, synergy and learning amongst the Cluster teams’. The objectives of the Foresighting Project were:

1. For each Cluster, analyse megatrends and megashocks with shared relevance for Australia and Indonesia to support the development of each CLIP;

2. Develop exploratory scenarios with AIC partners of Australian and Indonesian regional development to identify and integrate research priorities within and between Clusters;

3. Test and apply the DFAT-CSIRO Research for Development Alliance method to assess the learning

and integration achieved amongst AIC researchers as a result of the foresighting.

Activities

Five activities were planned to achieve these objectives. The following progress was made:

Activity 1 Horizon scanning (November 2014-January 2015): Cluster teams were engaged in workshops and meetings in Indonesia and Australia to identify shared issues, their drivers and megashocks. The CSIRO team then collated data on these issues and developed megatrend narratives.

Activity 2 Cluster megatrends (February-May 2015): Draft megatrend reports were produced for each Cluster to be screened and validated by the Cluster team members. The process of refinement and revision was completed in time for the information to be incorporated into the rationale sections of each CLIP in May 2015.

Activity 3 Scenario planning workshop (April 2015): To promote integration and synergies between the Clusters, the megatrend and megashock information was applied in a one day scenario planning workshop

Foresighting for the Australia-Indonesia Centre | 5

held in Jakarta. Two urban area case studies, Surabaya and Penrith were used as examples for the process, which highlighted problem-based priorities and innovations. Evaluation illustrated that learning and integration had been achieved.

Activity 4 Foresighting evaluation method (April 2015): A Small Grant project enabled the refinement of a participatory, mixed methods evaluation approach developed previously by CSIRO, UNHAS and the University of Mataram (UNRAM) in Makassar and Nusa Tenggara Barat. Two 1-day workshops were held in Makassar and Lombok in April 2015 to generate longitudinal evaluation data based on Theory of Change, Impact Pathways, self-reflection exercises and stakeholder interviews. The UNHAS and UNRAM teams’ experiences suggested that the approach was useful and could easily be applied to similar AIC projects.

Activity 5 Final integration and evaluation (June 2015): This activity was not completed due to the postponement of the planned AIC Summit, which was to be held in Melbourne in June 2015. The CSIRO team had planned to carry out a second two day scenario planning workshop to extend the integration started in Activity 3, and to apply the evaluation method developed in Activity 4 to assess the overall impact of the AIC and CSIRO Foresighting Project.

Outputs

Ten major outputs were produced through these activities, and are available from the AIC and CSIRO:

Butler, J.R.A., Slamet, A., Meharg, S., McEachern, S., Neilson, J. and Hajkowicz, S. 2015. Australia-Indonesia Centre Megatrends: Agriculture and Food. Report prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Centre, Monash University. CSIRO, Australia. 60 pp.

Wise, R.M., Butler, J.R.A., Meharg, S., McEachern, S. and Hajkowicz, S. 2015. Australia-Indonesia Centre Megatrends: Energy. Report prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Centre, Monash University. CSIRO, Australia. 56 pp.

Bohensky, E.L., Carter, L., Meharg, S., Butler, J.R.A., McEachern, S. and Hajkowicz, S. 2015. Australia-Indonesia Centre Megatrends: Health. Report prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Centre, Monash University. CSIRO, Australia. 60 pp.

Meharg, S., Kirono, D.G.C., Butler, J.R.A, McEachern, S. and Hajkowicz, S. 2015. Australia-Indonesia Centre Megatrends: Infrastructure. Report prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Centre, Monash University. CSIRO, Australia. 68 pp.

Australia-Indonesia Centre Agriculture and Food Megatrends Factsheet. 2 pp.

Australia-Indonesia Centre Energy Megatrends Factsheet. 2 pp.

Australia-Indonesia Centre Health Megatrends Factsheet. 2 pp.

Australia-Indonesia Centre Infrastructure Megatrends Factsheet. 2 pp.

Butler, J.R.A., Bohensky, E.L., Meharg, S., Wise, R.M. Slamet, A. and Signorini, J. 2015. Australia-Indonesia Centre Scenario Planning Workshop Report. Report prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Centre, Monash University. CSIRO, Australia. 44 pp.

Meharg, S., Butler, J.R.A., Kirono, D., Lazarow, N., Barrowman, H. and Duggan, K. 2015. Evaluating the impacts of participatory planning for urban water infrastructure and rural livelihoods adaptation in Indonesia. Small Grant Report to the Australia Indonesia Centre. CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra. 36 pp.


Lessons learned

Several lessons were learned during the project, and should be considered when designing future foresighting exercises:

1. Foresighting is most valuable before project planning begins: To have the greatest benefit, foresighting should be carried out in the scoping phase of a project. This enables trends, synergies and priorities to emerge which can then inform project design in a rational, evidence-based manner. Ideally, the process should include stakeholders and researchers to promote joint learning and collaboration before the project activities begin.

2. Foresighting requires time and resources to allow full engagement by researchers and research managers: Foresighting is a participatory, learning exercise. To be most valuable it requires sufficient time and resources to enable researchers and research managers to engage fully with the process. This also promotes their ‘ownership’ of the process and subsequent project design. In an international, multi-sector partnership such as the AIC, the resources and time required are more significant than for single-sector, domestic exercises. This is accentuated by the time required to establish cross-cultural learning and engagement.

3. Scenario planning can effectively apply megatrends and megashocks to identify priority innovation: The Activity 3 scenario planning workshop demonstrated how megatrend and megashock information can be applied to explore cross-sectoral synergies and prioritise innovations. The process enabled research priorities to emerge in a ‘problem-driven’ rather than a ‘sector-driven’ manner. However, the single day was insufficient to fully realise the method’s potential. Furthermore, the planned follow-up scenario planning workshop in Activity 5 would have provided an opportunity to re-examine the issues identified in the first workshop, and to design an integration dimension into the AIC’s research program. In future, sufficient resources should be made available to maximise the value of scenario planning. Also, stakeholders should be involved to optimise learning and opportunities for collaboration.

4. Evaluation tools and processes are necessary and potentially valuable: The Activity 3 Small Grants project with UNHAS and UNRAM demonstrated the utility of participatory, mixed methods evaluation. Also, the Theory of Change and Impact Pathway tools provided a ‘roadmap’ for such evaluation to reflect upon. In the AIC, only two Clusters applied Theory of Change, and these were incomplete. Ideally, this should have been an initial step for all Clusters, building on prior megatrends and scenario planning exercises. If this had been done, the evaluation methods developed with UNHAS and UNRAM would have potentially been applicable.


Acknowledgments

The Foresighting Project was funded by the Australia Indonesia Centre with in-kind support from CSIRO.

Through its integration and planning activities, the project engaged with many members of Indonesian and

Australian universities and government departments. We acknowledge their willing participation and

enthusiasm. Rather than name all of the individuals, we acknowledge them by their institutions:

Indonesia:

Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)

Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB)

Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR)

Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM)

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS)

Universitas Hasanuddin (UNHAS)

Universitas Indonesia (UI).

Universitas Mataram (UNRAM)

Australia:

Monash University

University of Melbourne

University of Sydney

Australian National University (ANU)

Department of Agriculture

The following individuals are especially acknowledged for their support and input:

Adjunct Professor Richard Price (Director, Research; Australia Indonesia Centre Research Team)

Dr. Megan Power (Manager, Projects and Programs; Australia Indonesia Centre Research Team)

Katrina Reid (Projects Officer, Australia Indonesia Centre Research Team)

Juliet Bell (CSIRO International)

Dr. Steve McEachern (ANU)

Dr. Jeff Neilson (University of Sydney)

Dr. Stefan Hajkowicz (CSIRO Digital Productivity)


Contents

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 4

Context.. .............................................................................................................................. 4

Activities .............................................................................................................................. 4

Outputs ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 6

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 7

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.1 The Australia-Indonesia Centre ............................................................................. 9

1.2 AIC Foresighting Project ........................................................................................ 9

2 Activity and output reports .............................................................................................. 12

2.1 Activity 1 Horizon scanning ................................................................................. 12

2.2 Activity 2 Cluster megatrends ............................................................................. 13

2.3 Activity 3 Scenario planning workshop ............................................................... 16

2.4 Activity 4 Foresighting evaluation method ......................................................... 19

2.5 Activity 5 Final integration and evaluation ......................................................... 22

3 Lessons learned ................................................................................................................ 23


1 Introduction

1.1 The Australia-Indonesia Centre

The Australia-Indonesia Centre (AIC) was formed in 2014 to strengthen and deepen Australia-Indonesia business, government, education, research, and community links. It has the goal of ‘building greater research collaboration between Australia and Indonesia in areas of shared challenge’. The Australian Government is providing $15 million in 2014-2017 to support the AIC. In Australia, five major research partners are also contributing funding and in-kind support: Monash University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, the Australian National University and CSIRO. In Indonesia, there are seven partners: Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB), Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR), Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Universitas Hasanuddin (UNHAS), and Universitas Indonesia (UI). The Indonesian partners’ coordinating committee is supported by the Indonesian Ministry for Research, Technology and Higher Education – formerly supported by the Ministry for Education and Culture, Department of Higher Education (DIKTI).

The AIC is collaboratively researching solutions to shared national challenges in four Clusters:

Energy

Infrastructure

Agriculture and Food

Health

Groups of Australian and Indonesian universities have been formed around each Cluster. Lead by two nominated Australian and two Indonesian institutions, a Cluster Investment Plan (CLIP) was developed in 2015 for each Cluster. This was undertaken through planning workshops held in Australia and Indonesia. Research began in the Clusters with the funding of several collaborative Small Grant Projects in 2015. Twenty-three were selected and funded by the AIC, while a further 28 projects were selected and funded by DIKTI on behalf of the AIC. In addition, eight Rapid Start Projects (four funded by AIC, four by DIKTI) commenced in early 2015.

In November 2014, CSIRO was contracted by the AIC with AU$230,000 to assist with the Cluster planning process by applying its ‘foresighting’ method, which can analyse key trends in each theme towards 2030 and beyond. This was intended to assist each CLIP to be evidence-based and anticipatory, and to enable a pathway to market, adoption and application.

1.2 AIC Foresighting Project

The over-arching project goal was ‘to support the development of CLIPs which focus on priority research areas of shared interest between Australia and Indonesia, and to promote integration, synergy and learning amongst the Cluster teams’. The design and timing of activities was dictated by each Cluster’s planning process. Due to the short project time frame (November 2014 – June 2015) and the advanced stage of the Clusters’ planning at that stage, the standard CSIRO foresighting method had to be truncated. Also, to track the learning and integration amongst the AIC researchers resulting from the project, an evaluation methodology was to be applied. This was originally developed in collaboration with UNHAS and the University of Mataram (UNRAM, Lombok) as part of the DFAT-CSIRO Research for Development Alliance in 2011-2014. A Small Grant was provided to CSIRO as part of the Foresighting Project to carry out a follow-up evaluation with UNHAS and UNRAM which would help to refine the method, and also provide longitudinal evaluation of the Research for Development Alliance projects.


The objectives of the project were:

4. For each Cluster analyse megatrends and megashocks with shared relevance for Australia and Indonesia to support the development of each Cluster’s CLIP;

5. Develop exploratory scenarios with AIC partners of Australian and Indonesian regional development to identify and integrate research priorities within and between Clusters;

6. Test and apply the Research for Development Alliance method to assess the learning and integration achieved amongst AIC researchers as a result of the foresighting.

Five activities were planned to achieve these objectives (Fig. 1):

Activity 1 Horizon scanning (November 2014-January 2015): The first step was to engage the Cluster teams in Australia and Indonesia through Cluster planning workshops and other events in November 2014 – January 2015. Horizon scanning of shared issues, drivers of those trends and potential megashocks was to be undertaken. Subsequent to these events the CSIRO team would collate relevant data on these issues and their trends, in consultation with the Cluster researchers.

Activity 2 Cluster megatrends (February-May 2015): The CSIRO team would then collate megatrend narratives for each Cluster, and deliver these as draft reports to the Cluster teams for validation and screening. After discussions and review the narratives would be finalised for each Cluster in May, and delivered as a megatrend report. The Clusters would then apply this information to justify and refine their research priorities, and include summaries of relevant information in the CLIPs.

Activity 3 Scenario planning workshop (April 2015): Because the planning of Small Grants and Rapid Start projects has occurred in some isolation, a more strategic exercise was required to encourage integration and synergies amongst the Clusters. A scenario planning workshop was to be held in Indonesia with the Cluster teams to explore potential future development paths for similar locations in both countries. Informed by the validated megatrends and megashocks collated in Activity 1 and 2 for each Cluster, participants would develop visions and scenarios for case study locations. From the workshop, pan-Cluster synergies and research priorities would be identified.

Activity 4 Foresighting evaluation method (April 2015): To refine the evaluation method developed previously between CSIRO, UNHAS and UNRAM as part of the DFAT-CSIRO Research for Development Alliance, two 1-day workshops would be held in Makassar and Lombok to repeat the exercise. These collaborations would utilise Theory of Change to evaluate the impacts of participatory planning for urban water infrastructure and rural livelihood adaptation.

Activity 5 Final integration and evaluation (June 2015): To re-engage the Cluster teams and their CLIPs, a second 2-day scenario planning workshop would be held with all AIC researchers at the AIC Summit, to be held in Melbourne. This workshop would enable the revisiting of the initial scenarios developed in Activity 3 through a repeat exercise. This would promote integration and learning across the Clusters and their CLIPs, and highlight potential synergies for emerging research in 2015-2017. The evaluation methodology developed in Activity 4 would be applied at the workshop to evaluate the impacts of the project.

The CSIRO team was divided into sub-teams to provide consistent engagement and build relationships with the Cluster researchers. Two of the team were Indonesians, Dewi Kirono and Archie Slamet. Sub-teams were designated according to the CSIRO researchers’ interests and expertise. Steve McEachern from the ANU Data Archive provided invaluable assistance with data collation and analysis at short notice. The sub-teams were:

Energy: Russell Wise and Seona Meharg

Infrastructure: Seona Meharg and Dewi Kirono

Agriculture and Food: James Butler and Archie Slamet

Health: Erin Bohensky and Lucy Carter


Figure 1. The AIC Foresighting Project process, showing activities and timeframes

Energy

megatrends,

megashocks

Infrastructure

megatrends,

megashocks

Agriculture

and Food

megatrends,

megashocks

Health

megatrends,

megashocks

Energy CLIP Infrastructure

CLIP

Food and

Agriculture

CLIP

Health CLIP

Timeframe

1. Horizon

scanning

2. Cluster

megatrends

3. Scenario

planning

workshop

4. Foresighting

evaluation

method

Activity

UNHAS

UNRAM

evaluation

workshops

AIC Summit scenario planning

workshop and evaluation

5. Final

integration and

evaluation

Scenario planning workshop

integrating megatrends

Data collation

Validation and

screening

Validated

megatrends

Synergies and

pan-Cluster

priorities

Energy

horizon

scanning

Infrastructure

horizon

scanning

Agriculture

and Food

horizon

scanning

Health and

Medicine

horizon

scanning

November

2014

February

2015

April

2015

June

2015

January

2015


2 Activity and output reports

2.1 Activity 1 Horizon scanning

2.1.1 Energy Cluster

A horizon scanning activity was undertaken on 24th and 25th November 2014 in Bandung, Indonesia. It was attended by 35 members of the Energy Cluster, including representatives from the AIC Research Team and CSIRO. Five of the representatives were from Australia, with two from ANU, two from Monash University and one from the University of Melbourne. The remaining participants were from Indonesian institutions including: UNHAS, IPB, ITSN, ITB, UI and UGM. The horizon scan workshop exercise aggregated participants’ views into common issues, drivers and megashocks. Follow-up communication with Cluster researchers was carried out by email and phone. Advice on data sources was given by Cluster members, but largely undertaken by the CSIRO sub-team, supported by in-depth expertise from the CSIRO Energy Futures Flagship.

2.1.2 Infrastructure Cluster

A joint Indonesian-Australian researcher meeting for the Infrastructure Cluster was held in Surabaya, Indonesia on 21st – 23rd January 2015. During this meeting a horizon scanning activity was undertaken with 20 members of the Cluster, of which 17 were from Indonesian universities: ITS, UI, UGM and ITB. The three Australian members were from Melbourne and Monash Universities. Two AIC Research Team and one CSIRO representative were also present. Follow-up meetings were held with the Cluster team in Australia, and by email and phone.

2.1.3 Agriculture and Food Cluster

For the Agriculture and Food Cluster a joint Indonesian-Australian researcher meeting, as had been convened for other Clusters, was not possible. Instead, the project team engaged researchers separately in Australia and Indonesia. Following a Cluster planning meeting at the University of Sydney on 27th November 2014, individual telephone interviews were carried out with five members from the University of Sydney, the Australian National University and the Department of Agriculture. In Indonesia, a workshop was held on 23rd December 2014 with six members from IPB, ITB, ITS, and UNAIR, and the results from the two events were integrated by the CSIRO sub-team.

2.1.4 Health Cluster

For the Health Cluster a planning meeting with Australian Health Cluster leads was held by teleconference on the 24th November 2014. In early December 2014 a series of stakeholder engagement meetings were undertaken in Jakarta, Indonesia with both Australian and Indonesian Cluster leads. Following this consultation a joint Indonesian-Australian Cluster planning meeting was held on 11th December in Surabaya, Indonesia, to undertake a horizon scanning exercise for the Cluster. The meeting was attended by members from the University of Sydney, University of Melbourne, UI, and UNAIR, CSIRO and the AIC Research Team. Follow-up phone meetings were held with the Cluster leads to obtain further input and data collation in January 2015.


2.2 Activity 2 Cluster megatrends

First drafts of the megatrend reports were delivered in late February and early March, and submitted to the Cluster Leads for validation and screening. Following final reviews in June 2015 they were submitted to the CSIRO Communications Team for desk-top publishing and formatting.

2.2.1 Energy Cluster

Between March and June 2015 the Energy Megatrend Report was refined through several iterations, with input from the Cluster Leads and the AIC Research Team. The report identified three issues shared by Australia and Indonesia: decarbonisation of fossil fuel dependent economies, meeting the growing rural and urban energy demands, and capacity to manage opportunities and conflicts in allocating and using scarce and shared resources. Potential megashocks varied between the issues, but the most frequently mentioned were climate change-related extreme events, political economy shocks (e.g. corruption, lobbying by powerful incumbent players, changing government and government policies), food and oil price shocks, novel technology shocks, geo-political security shocks (e.g. terrorism, cross-border disputes, refugees), nuclear energy disasters, and extended energy blackouts. Based on these shared issues and drivers, four overlapping megatrends were identified: ‘More affluent, more informed consumers’, ‘Green energy’s quiet take over’, ‘Increasing windows of opportunity’, and ‘Clashing interests and ideologies’ (Fig. 2). Two outputs were produced: a 56 page megatrend report and a 2 page summary.

Figure 2. The four megatrends identified for the Energy Cluster

During May and June the CSIRO sub-team assisted the Cluster Leads to incorporate the megatrend information into the Rationale and Executive Summary of the Energy CLIP. Also, a Theory of Change developed with the Cluster researchers at the horizon scanning workshop in Bandung in November 2014 was applied by the Leads when planning the CLIP’s activities.

2.2.2 Infrastructure Cluster

The Infrastructure Megatrend Report was produced with active input from the Cluster Leads. Shared issues were categorised into five main themes: environment, governance, sustainability, effectiveness, and issues specific to ports. The Cluster Leads specifically asked for additional data to be generated on trends in port traffic, which was duly collated. Potential megashocks varied between the broad issues, but the most frequently mentioned were changing government policies or environment, climate-related events, natural

THE

FUTURENOW

Scenario

space


disasters such as earthquakes or flooding, fuel price spikes or insecurity and global disease pandemics and health issues. Based on these shared issues and drivers as well as the subsequent foresighting process, four overlapping megatrends were identified: Environmental Risks and Opportunities, International Gateways, Coming Ready or Not, and Technology and Innovation (Fig. 3). Two outputs were produced: a 68 page megatrend report and a 2 page summary.

Figure 3. The four megatrends identified for the Infrastructure Cluster

During May and June the CSIRO sub-team assisted the Cluster Leads to incorporate the megatrend information into the Rationale and Executive Summary of the Infrastructure CLIP. Also, a prototype Theory of Change developed with the Cluster researchers at the horizon scanning workshop in Surabaya, Indonesia on 21st – 23rd January 2015 assisted the planning process.

2.2.3 Agriculture and Food Cluster

The Agriculture and Food Megatrend Report was greatly assisted by the contributions of the Australian Cluster Lead, Jeff Nielson from the University of Sydney. It was also informed by the contextual knowledge and contacts of Archie Slamet, who although employed by CSIRO is based in Jakarta. Six broad shared issues were identified: biosecurity threats, innovation, changing social dynamics of the agriculture and food sector, trade opportunities, climate change and national policies. Potential megashocks varied between the issues, but the most frequently mentioned were changing government policies or environment, climate-related events, natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions or tsunamis, fuel and food price spikes or insecurity, and global disease pandemics. Based on these shared issues and drivers, four overlapping megatrends were identified: Environmental Hazards, the Asian Century of Trade, the Changing Face of Farm to Fork, and Innovation Catalysing Change (Fig. 4). Two outputs were produced: a 60 page megatrend report and a 2 page summary. During May and June the CSIRO sub-team assisted the Cluster Leads to incorporate the megatrend information into the Rationale and Executive Summary of the Agriculture and Food CLIP.

THE

FUTURENOW

Scenario

space


Figure 4. The four megatrends identified for the Agriculture and Food Cluster

2.2.4 Health Cluster

The Health Cluster Megatrend Report was developed with active input from the Cluster Leads, particularly on maternal health. Seven broad shared issues were identified: quality of health care, rapid change in HIV, access to health care, non-communicable diseases, infant and maternal mortality and morbidity, nutrition, and ageing population. Potential megashocks varied between the issues, but the most frequently mentioned were a major health crisis (natural disasters, influenza, global pandemic), political changes, civil unrest (e.g. due to a demand for accreditation), terror activity, climate change, HIV drug resistance, diversion of financial and personnel resources for health care, changes in Indonesia’s Sustainable Development Goals, free trade agreements and pension planning. Based on these shared issues and drivers, four overlapping megatrends were identified: Policy Reform, My Generation, The Urban World, and Closing the Gap (Fig. 5). Two outputs were produced: a 60 page megatrend report and a 2 page summary. During May and June the CSIRO sub-team assisted the Cluster Leads to incorporate the megatrend information into the Rationale and Executive Summary of the Health CLIP.

Figure 5. The four megatrends identified for the Health Cluster

THE

FUTURENOW

Scenario

space

THE

FUTURENOW

Scenario

space


2.3 Activity 3 Scenario planning workshop

2.3.1 Objectives of the scenario planning workshop

On 21st April 2015, a scenario planning workshop was held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Jakarta. It was attended by 22 AIC Cluster, AIC and Operations Committee members, plus the five CSIRO team members who facilitated the workshop. The Energy, Health and Infrastructure Clusters were represented by four participants, and the Agriculture and Food Cluster was represented by three. The Health Cluster had only Indonesian representatives, while the other three had both Indonesian and Australian participants. The workshop was preceded by Cluster planning meetings on 20th April, and presentations by the Clusters of their draft CLIPs to the Operations Committee on 22nd April.

The workshop objectives were to:

1. Develop exploratory scenarios of Australian and Indonesian regional development to identify and integrate research priorities;

2. Test and apply an evaluation methodology for the foresighting methods used

To achieve the objectives, the CSIRO team designed the workshop following established CSIRO scenario planning methodologies which have been successfully applied to integrate stakeholders’ knowledge and generate social learning in other contexts.

2.3.2 Identifying research priorities and CLIP alignment

The scenario planning process identified priority ‘no regrets’ innovations (i.e. those that yield benefits under any future conditions of change) required to achieve the visions for Surabaya and Penrith. Rather than being derived from any one Cluster, these priorities were generated by considering the local contexts, and the range of future uncertainties and megashocks that could influence development trajectories. The highest-ranked priorities identified by the three focus groups were:

Surabaya: - Creative mechanisms for staged and sustainable investment in education and infrastructure - Investment in SMART infrastructure - Innovation in leadership to sustain the vision, entrepreneurs, policy and regulation

Penrith: - ‘Smart’ City integration (e.g. education) - Policy incentives for entrepreneurship - Strong leadership to change and overcome problems

Although context-specific, the issues affecting Surabaya are likely to be relevant to many other urbanising regions of Indonesia, and the same is true for Penrith in Australia. Furthermore, these issues overlapped for both case studies (e.g. innovative leadership), providing an opportunity for comparative research. When compared to the Clusters’ CLIP objectives and research priorities, there was considerable alignment. However, some knowledge gaps were also revealed.


Participants from the scenario planning workshop

2.3.3 Integrating Cluster research

Through the scenario planning process, and by creating focus groups consisting of mixed Cluster members, the identification of priority innovations for Surabaya and Penrith were problem-driven, rather than Cluster-driven. Consequently, many of the innovations require inter-sectoral, pan-Cluster expertise to address them. However, the mechanisms for generating such integrated research do not currently exist, and if not addressed through the CLIPs, Clusters were likely to maintain a uni-sectoral approach. A review of each Cluster’s megatrends highlighted some synergies and overlaps relevant for Cluster research (Table 1). Also, the following cross-cutting megatrend themes were listed for further consideration by the AIC:

1. Resilience of infrastructure 2. Aging infrastructure 3. The Internet of Things 4. Urbanisation 5. Governance 6. Social License to Operate for all issues 7. Communications 8. Media 9. Citizen science


Table 1. Synergies and overlaps linking Cluster’s megatrends

Clusters

Agriculture and Food Infrastructure Health

Infrastructure

Food transport, export and food access: ports, food storage warehouses, cool chain infrastructure

Aging infrastructure

Resilience to extreme climatic events

Health

Nutrition: double burden in Indonesia, urbanisation

Local knowledge: health and medicinal plants

Remote area health: limits medication access, internet access to specialists, GPs’ availability, energy blackouts

Mitigation of the impacts of megashocks

Energy Fuel for transport and

food storage Powerlines and grids

Access to energy and fuel for transport

Remote area health: energy blackouts

2.3.4 Workshop evaluation

A questionnaire survey was carried out before and after the workshop to gauge changes in perceptions, learning and knowledge integration. The evaluation suggested that in spite of running for only one day, the scenario planning, megatrend and megashock analyses had generated learning and created conditions for greater future collaboration and integration amongst the Cluster participants. For priority shared issues, there appeared to be a shift in perceptions from ‘communication’, ‘infrastructure’ and ‘people’ before the workshop to ‘energy’ and ‘infrastructure’ after the workshop. Understanding of other Cluster’s research priorities increased from 50% stating ‘somewhat well’ or ‘very well’ before to 94% after. Understanding of the other nation’s issues increased from 30% stating ‘somewhat well’ or ‘very well’ before to 72% after.

There were also some country-specific shifts in perceptions. For example, Indonesians identified priority shared issues as being ‘communication’, ‘education’, ‘transportation’, ‘food’, ‘health’ and ‘politics’ before the workshop, but stated ‘energy’ as being most important after the workshop. Australians identified ‘people’ before and ‘social’ after. Most (56%) Indonesians thought of the future as being ‘less than 15 years’ before the workshop, but this declined to 42% after the workshop. Meanwhile, 75% of Australians thought of the future as being ‘less than 15 years’ before, and this increased to 83% after.

However, the small sample sizes of respondents (20 before and 16 after), and smaller samples of country-specific respondents made it difficult to draw statistically robust conclusions from these results. Despite this limitation, there was some credible evidence that learning and awareness-raising had occurred, promoting conditions for future integration between the Clusters. The contributory role of the Foresighting Project’s scenario planning process and the megatrend analyses was also highlighted by several Indonesian and Australian participants. In specifying the benefits of the project, one Australian participant stated “all aspects – it helped us synthesise the problem in a logical manner”, and another cited “integration”.

Full results of the workshop and evaluation were produced in a 49 page report.


2.4 Activity 4 Foresighting evaluation method

2.4.1 Evaluation approach

A significant limitation amongst many current impact evaluation methodologies is that a narrow set of approaches is often used to evaluate complex development issues. This means that impacts may be only partially described, and this is compounded by a lack of clarity around the validation and attribution of impacts to particular interventions.

This AIC Small Grants project enabled the CSIRO team to refine an evaluation methodology developed as part of the DFAT-CSIRO Research for Development Alliance, which ran from 2008-2014. The two Indonesian projects and partners within the Alliance were the focus because they had applied the same participatory planning methodology: the Makassar Sustainable Urban Development (with UNHAS), and Climate Adaptation Strategies for Rural Livelihoods in Nusa Tenggara Barat Province (with the University of Mataram or UNRAM). The Small Grants project involved repeating evaluation workshops and stakeholder interviews in April-September 2015 that had first been undertaken at the end of the Alliance projects in April-June 2014, thus enabling the tracking of progress along each project’s Impact Pathway 1 year after project completion.

The evaluation approach was based on three facets:

1. A Theory of Change and Impact Pathway exercise and diagram which created a ‘roadmap’ for each project’s assumed progress and related outputs, outcomes, impacts and goals.

2. A self-reflection workshop amongst the Indonesian research partners which mapped key achievements against the project’s Impact Pathway, and discussed reasons for lack of progress and necessary remedial actions.

3. An impact evaluation survey of the research team and boundary partners, which asked interviewees to score 18 indicators linked to phases of the Theory of Change and Impact Pathway, providing additional perspectives and triangulation of results from the self-reflection workshops.

2.4.2 Makassar Sustainable Urban Development

On 29th April 2015, 11 members of the UNHAS-CSIRO research team for the Makassar Sustainable Urban Development Project attended an Impact Pathway self-reflection workshop. The results of the 2014 evaluation were shared with participants, followed by a refresher presentation on the project’s objective and activities. Participants then re-evaluated project outputs, outcomes and impacts, mapping them against the 2014 results. Overall, the results reflected positive progress since 2014, with a number of advances along the Impact Pathway documented.

In 2014, 16 researchers and boundary partners involved in the project were interviewed and asked to give their assessment of change by scoring each indicator, and provided evidence for their scores. In May-June 2015, 17 researchers and boundary partners were interviewed by two of the UNHAS research team; one from the previous survey was unavailable and two additional stakeholders were interviewed. Results showed that in 2015 there had been a positive influence for all indicators in all project stages, and the average score for each phase was higher, with small increases for Stages 1 and 3, and a significant improvement for Stage 2.


The UNHAS-CSIRO research team

2.4.3 Climate Adaptation Strategies for Rural Livelihoods in Nusa Tenggara Barat Province (NTB)

On 28th April 2015, 11 members of the UNRAM-CSIRO research team and four stakeholders attended an Impact Pathway self-reflection workshop. The results of the 2014 evaluation were shared with participants, followed by a refresher presentation on the original project. Participants then re-evaluated project outputs, outcomes and impacts, mapping them against the 2014 results. Overall, the results reflected positive progress, with some advances along the Impact Pathway (Fig. 5).

In 2014, 17 researchers and boundary partners involved in the project were interviewed at project completion. In June-September 2015, 16 researchers and boundary partners were interviewed by UNRAM team members, with one research team member from the previous survey unavailable. Results showed that there had been a positive influence for many indicators in all stages, with the evaluation results indicating increases since the 2014 survey for Stage 1, and a maintaining of influence in Stages 2 and 3 (Fig. 6).

The UNRAM-CSIRO research team


Figure 5. Self-reflection comparisons for the NTB project between 2014 and 2015 for the project’s Theory of Change and Impact Pathway (blue line). Blue numbers show no change from the project completion

scores in 2014, whereas yellow numbers reflect improvement and green a decline in impact since the 2014 evaluation.

Figure 6. Average scores (showing standard deviations) for all indicators in the three stages of the NTB

project’s Theory of Change in 2014 and 2015

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

2014 2015

V. STRONG

STRONG

GOOD

SOME

Infl

ue

nce


2.4.4 Recommendations

Following the exercises in 2014 and 2015, the CSIRO teams sought reflections and feedback from their Indonesian research partners about the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method and tools. This enabled the following recommendations to be made to the AIC:

1. The Theory of Change and Impact Pathways concepts were easily understood and accepted as ‘roadmaps’ for the projects, and could be useful planning and evaluation tools for AIC projects.

2. The self-reflection workshops were very useful exercises which enabled the research teams to analyse their achievements, and identify actions needed to maintain progress along their Impact Pathways after project completion. However, clear actions and responsibilities must be decided during these exercises to encourage the teams to follow-up.

3. The impact evaluation surveys revealed additional information from both researchers and boundary partners which complemented the self-reflection workshops, and the indicators provided useful graphic representations of progress along the Impact Pathway over time. However, Indonesian team members undertaking the interviews must be adequately resourced to complete the interviews.

4. To have maximum utility for the Indonesian research teams, the results of the evaluations must be returned to them following analysis within 2-3 months. If not, momentum and interest wanes, and any actions to be followed-up are forgotten. Ideally, Indonesian researchers should be trained to undertake the entire process independently.

5. The self-reflection workshops and impact evaluation surveys should be incorporated into projects from the outset, rather than being conducted ex-post when the greatest opportunities for research teams to respond have largely been lost.

2.5 Activity 5 Final integration and evaluation

The project plan had been to re-engage the Cluster teams and their CLIPs through a second 2-day scenario

planning workshop to be held with all AIC researchers at the AIC Summit in June 2015. This workshop would

enable the revisiting of the initial scenarios developed in Activity 3 through a repeat exercise. This would

promote integration and learning across the Clusters and their CLIPs, and further assess potential synergies

for prioritisation in 2015-2017. It was also intended that the evaluation methodology developed in Activity 4

would be applied at the workshop to evaluate the impacts of the AIC and the Foresighting Project on each

Cluster’s nascent Theory of Change. Unfortunately the AIC Summit was postponed, and Activity 5 could not

be carried out within the life of the project. The evaluation may not have been feasible in any case, since only

the Energy and Infrastructure Clusters had developed Theories of Change with the CSIRO team.


3 Lessons learned

The CSIRO Foresighting Project was challenging from a variety of perspectives. The project’s objective was

‘to support the development of CLIPs which focus on priority research areas of shared interest between

Australia and Indonesia, and to promote integration, synergy and learning amongst the Cluster teams’.

Fundamental to this goal was engagement with Cluster Leads and members on a regular basis. However, this

was inherently difficult due to the large number of academic institutions involved, both within each country

and as a whole, plus the many researchers.

A second issue was the timeframe for the project. When project activities began in November 2014, the

Cluster Teams had already begun their CLIP planning, and in some cases had already established their priority

research areas. Consequently the megatrend reports were potentially redundant. To try and ‘catch up’ with

the CLIP process, the standard CSIRO foresighting method had to be truncated and accelerated. Horizon

scanning was undertaken during November 2014 – January 2015, often with insufficient engagement with

Cluster members. The Christmas holiday period in Australia, plus the need for international travel at short

notice to engage with Indonesian partners exacerbated the difficulties with this process. The subsequent

screening and validation process was also sub-optimal, with insufficient time for comprehensive data

collation and megatrend analysis. Nonetheless, the draft megatrend reports were produced in order to meet

the deadline for the finalisation of the CLIPS, and information was included as planned to provide a rationale

for CLIP research priorities.

A third issue was the limited capacity of Cluster Leads and members to engage with the foresighting process

due to existing AIC and other work commitments. This was exaggerated for the Indonesian participants by

the tyranny of distance. Following the horizon scanning, it was difficult to engage further to collate relevant

data and information on shared issues raised by the researchers during the initial meetings. This problem

was also evident during April-May 2015 when trying to integrate the megatrend information into the draft

CLIPs.

Finally, the project did not fulfil its potential in terms of promoting integration and learning because Activity

5 Final integration and evaluation was not completed in June 2015. The postponement of the AIC Summit

meant that there was not a second opportunity to bring Indonesian and Australian researchers together.

Consequently the potential to further explore synergies and cross-Cluster integration was missed. The

Activity 3 Scenario planning workshop clearly demonstrated that even in one day significant progress could

be made in achieving learning and cohesion. Also, the postponement of the summit prevented the

opportunity to demonstrate and apply the Activity 4 Foresighting evaluation method, which was well-

received by the UNHAS and UNRAM research teams. However, without each Cluster having previously

developed a Theory of Change the approach may have been of limited value.

These issues enable several lessons to be learned for future foresighting exercises:

5. Foresighting is most valuable before project planning begins: To have the greatest benefit,

foresighting should be carried out in the scoping phase of a project. This enables trends, synergies

and priorities to emerge which can then inform project design in a rational, evidence-based manner.

Ideally, the process should include stakeholders and researchers to promote joint learning and

collaboration before the project activities begin.


6. Foresighting requires time and resources to allow full engagement by researchers and research

managers: Foresighting is a participatory, learning exercise. To be most valuable it requires sufficient

time and resources to enable researchers and research managers to engage fully with the process.

This also promotes their ‘ownership’ of the process and subsequent project design. In an

international partnership such as the AIC, the resources and time required are more significant than

for single-sector, domestic exercises. This is accentuated by the time required to establish cross-

cultural learning and engagement.

7. Scenario planning can effectively apply megatrends and megashocks to identify priority innovation:

The one day scenario planning workshop demonstrated how megatrend and megashock information

can be applied to explore cross-sectoral synergies and prioritise innovations. The process enabled

research priorities to emerge in a ‘problem-driven’ rather than a ‘sector-driven’ manner. However,

the single day was insufficient to fully realise the method’s potential. Furthermore, the planned

follow-up scenario planning workshop in Activity 5 would have provided an opportunity to re-

examine the issues identified in the first workshop, and to design an integration dimension into the

AIC’s research program. In future, sufficient resources and planning should be made available to

maximise the value of scenario planning. Also, stakeholders should be involved to maximise learning

and opportunities for collaboration.

8. Evaluation tools and processes are necessary and potentially valuable: The Activity 3 Small Grants

project with UNHAS and UNRAM demonstrated the utility of participatory, mixed methods

evaluation. Also, the Theory of Change and Impact Pathway tools provided a ‘roadmap’ for such

evaluation to reflect upon. In the AIC, only two Clusters applied Theory of Change, and these were

incomplete. Ideally, this should have been an initial step for all Clusters, building on prior megatrends

and scenario planning exercises. If this had been done, the evaluation methods developed with

UNHAS and UNRAM would have been potentially applicable.


CONTACT US

t 1300 363 400 +61 3 9545 2176 e [email protected] w www.csiro.au

AT CSIRO WE SHAPE THE FUTURE

We do this by using science to solve real issues. Our research makes a difference to industry, people and the planet.

As Australia’s national science agency we’ve been pushing the edge of what’s possible for over 85 years. Today we have more than 5,000 talented people working out of 50-plus centres in Australia and internationally. Our people work closely with industry and communities to leave a lasting legacy. Collectively, our innovation and excellence places us in the top ten applied research agencies in the world.

WE ASK, WE SEEK AND WE SOLVE

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CSIRO Land and Water Dr James Butler t +61 2 6776 1358 e [email protected] w http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/LWF

foresighting for the australia-indonesia centreforesighting for the australia-indonesia centre final...

Documents