IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v14y2020i4p20-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainties, Knowledge, and Futures in Foresight Studies — A Case of the Industry 4.0

Author

Listed:
  • Andrzej Magruk

    (Bialystok University of Technology (Poland))

Abstract

The main purpose of this publication is an attempt to treat the phenomenon of uncertainty as one of the main research subjects in futures studies and not as the background for futures research – by answering the following research question: “What is the methodical relationship between the scope of the uncertainty phenomenon and the levels of knowledge and types of futures in the foresight approach?” This study uses the results of the analysis and criticism of the literature as the main research method. On this basis, deductive reasoning was carried out. Types of futures and the scope of uncertainty allowed to define the author's scale of knowledge levels are proposed. This paper has attempted to draw together three methodological fields: uncertainty, foresight, and knowledge. The author analyzed complex relations among the above areas on the basis of their characteristics, which are extensions of existing concepts available in the literature. In the author's opinion, conclusions from the results presented in this article can be a valuable contribution to the development of the area of of futures management. In the management of complex systems (such as Industry 4.0), from the foresight methodological point of view, it seems relevant to determine which specific uncertainties can be managed by which classes of foresight methods, and which foresight methods are determined by what level of knowledge. The results of the research presented in this publication may be used for creating a research methodology of technological foresight projects and as a complementary element of research devoted to the issues of the development of modern technologies, which include Industry 4.0.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrzej Magruk, 2020. "Uncertainties, Knowledge, and Futures in Foresight Studies — A Case of the Industry 4.0," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 20-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:14:y:2020:i:4:p:20-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2021/01/17/1358263846/2-Magruk-20-33.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    3. Alexander Sokolov & Alexander Chulok, 2012. "Russian Science and Technology Foresight – 2030: Key Features and First Results," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 12-25.
    4. J. Refsgaard & K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen & M. Drews & K. Halsnæs & E. Jeppesen & H. Madsen & A. Markandya & J. Olesen & J. Porter & J. Christensen, 2013. "The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies—A Danish water management example," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 337-359, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    2. Inger Lise Johansen & Marvin Rausand, 2014. "Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(3), pages 272-290, June.
    3. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    4. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    5. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    6. Berner, C. & Flage, R., 2016. "Strengthening quantitative risk assessments by systematic treatment of uncertain assumptions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 46-59.
    7. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    8. Majeed Abimbola & Faisal Khan, 2018. "Dynamic Blowout Risk Analysis Using Loss Functions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 255-271, February.
    9. Caputo, Antonio C. & Federici, Alessandro & Pelagagge, Pacifico M. & Salini, Paolo, 2023. "Offshore wind power system economic evaluation framework under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    10. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    12. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Anil Markandya & Enrica De Cian & Laurent Drouet & Josué M. Polanco-Martìnez & Francesco Bosello, 2016. "Building Uncertainty into the Adaptation Cost Estimation in Integrated Assessment Models," Working Papers 2016.21, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    15. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    16. Wang, Jian & Gao, Shibin & Yu, Long & Ma, Chaoqun & Zhang, Dongkai & Kou, Lei, 2023. "A data-driven integrated framework for predictive probabilistic risk analytics of overhead contact lines based on dynamic Bayesian network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    17. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.
    18. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Probabilities and background knowledge as a tool to reflect uncertainties in relation to intentional acts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 229-234.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    uncertainty; knowledge; future; foresight; method; Industry 4.0;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:14:y:2020:i:4:p:20-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.