IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v39y2012i2p245-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges in communicating the outcomes of a foresight study to advise decision-makers on policy and strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Claudio Chauke Nehme
  • Marcio de Miranda Santos
  • Lelio Fellows Filho
  • Gilda Massari Coelho

Abstract

This paper addresses the challenges of communicating the results of a strategic foresight exercise which aimed to support decision-makers in their activities, providing for increased confidence and credibility throughout the process. Foresight recommendations are shaped and derived according to the nature and complexity of the themes being considered, the level of stakeholder participation and, quite frequently, the communication skills of those managing the process. Efforts towards better communication among participants are decisive for successful foresight exercises. This paper stresses that the intangibles are important outcomes, as well as the importance of promoting out-of-the-box thinking during the exercise. Lessons learnt are presented, as well as a case study developed by the Center for Strategic Management and Studies (CGEE), Brasília. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudio Chauke Nehme & Marcio de Miranda Santos & Lelio Fellows Filho & Gilda Massari Coelho, 2012. "Challenges in communicating the outcomes of a foresight study to advise decision-makers on policy and strategy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 245-257, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:2:p:245-257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:2:p:245-257. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.