Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government

Annex D. Overview of institutional structures and functions in Lithuania, Italy, and Malta

Lithuania

Existing structures for foresight

In Lithuania, existing structures highlight the importance of both permanent and ad hoc councils in contributing to strategic insights and research capabilities through department groups such as STRATA. Furthermore, the engagement and added contribution of academic and research institutions to foresight efforts are recognised, although their relevance in initial activities might be perceived as limited. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the University of Vilnius has been an important actor within Lithuania’s foresight system, such as providing methodological support jointly with STRATA and in close collaboration with international partners, to the LT2050 process as well as helping build a culture and practice of foresight.

The Strategic Management Unit, the State Progress Council, and agencies such as STRATA are central in legitimising strategic foresight across government. The Committee for the Future and the Public Procurement Office can assist in disseminating futures literacy, providing futures perspectives on ongoing legislation, and consulting on revisions to the implementation of LT2050.

Function areas

Institutions currently have functions in place to provide support, indicating that there is a foundation upon which futures capabilities can be built. However, there is a gap in connecting these functions to futures-oriented responsibilities.

On the other hand, legal mandates are expected to be established for each agency, suggesting a structured approach to institutional responsibilities. There is, however, a perceived discrepancy between the legal mandate and its practical application, with some functions existing more in theory than in practice.

While all institutions are said to be tasked with intelligence provision, there is ambiguity around their responsibility for foresight versus traditional policy planning. The question arises whether having the function equates to having this responsibility and actually producing foresight knowledge and outputs.

Specific entities such as the Committee for the Future and STRATA are identified as having participatory, methodological support and networking functions. Yet, the challenge may lie on making these roles legitimate and concrete across the public administration.

The function of “Facilitating Experimentation and Alternatives Exploration” is understood to be essential for effective foresight. This is noted to be particularly relevant under the stewardship of organisations such as GovTech and STRATA, which are recognised for their expertise and capacity to sustain such initiatives.

Existing capabilities

To build foresight capabilities across government, improve integration and co-ordination between ministries, and leverage existing organisational capacities, actions will include collaborating with entities such as STRATA, GovTech, and the Central Project Management Agency (CPMA). Moreover, the importance of consensus building and the creation of safe spaces to challenge assumptions are underscored as highly impactful for Lithuania, with tangible examples evident in the LT2050 process. Despite this, these areas are perceived as having clear functional deficiencies, noting a lack of sustainable practice.

Italy

Institutional structures and roles

The development of a unit at the centre of government is seen as necessary for the institutionalisation of strategic foresight in the Italian public administration. A central position complemented by support from leadership is important in the Italian context to promote the integration of strategic foresight into policymaking, push commitment at all levels of government and facilitate vertical and horizontal communication.

Parliamentary involvement is considered a key factor for success, but participants highlighted the challenge of co-operation between the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, which may prove a hindrance to establishing strategic foresight as a consistent practice.

Given their prominence in Italy, participants highlighted the importance of developing foresight capabilities in regional units, noting that foresight practices have been applied in a number of regions (see Box 7.1). It is also important to ensure that training is provided to regional administrations so that there a common language about activities with long-term goals and consequences is understood.

Box A ‎D.1. Regional strategic foresight efforts in Italy

In addition to national efforts, strategic foresight activities are also being conducted at the regional level in Italy.

Autonomous Province of Trento

The Provincial Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Autonomous Province of Trento (SproSS, Strategia Provinciale per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile) refers to both UN 2030 Agenda and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development. The Strategy describes a vision of a sustainable Trentino with reference to desirable futures in 2040 (overcoming therefore the 2030 deadline) and has been developed through a series of participatory foresight exercises between 2019 and 2021.

With the scientific support of the University of Trento, the definition of the Provincial Strategy exploited different methods, including Three Horizons, Strategic Interviews, Delphi surveys, Online and Face-to-face workshops, and Online surveys.

The Three Horizons approach of SproSS were defined as:

Horizon 1 (H1) representing the incoming changes or emerging issues: These referred to the main local impacts generated by global megatrends that can challenge current systems and policies. This horizon focused on identifying potential issues that could disrupt the status quo.

Horizon 3 (H3) representing the aspirations and shared visions for the sustainable future of Trentino: The vision of a sustainable Trentino in 2040, where positive changes in the territory and in the provincial administration are clearly visible, aiming at a Smarter, Greener, More Connected, More Social, and Closer to Citizens Province and 20 provincial sustainability objectives.

Horizon 2 (H2) representing innovations for sustainability by 2030: These pertained to innovations necessary to support aspirations in H3 and are meant to be concrete proposals to be implemented by 2030 in order to pave the way for the imagined 2040 Trentino.

The participatory foresight activities included 190 high school students, 330 contributions from online participants, 200 citizens and associations registered for online interactive workshops, 40 professional associations, professional orders, trade unions and 15 APTs (tourist boards), 84 mayors interviewed, representatives of 36 local organisations.

The approval of SproSS (2021) was followed by a “Pact for Sustainable Development” signed by private and public organisations, including local research institutes, and specific elaborations for municipalities and companies (Municipal Agenda 2030 and Enterprise Agenda 2030). The first update was produced in 2023 (SproSS Report 2023), while a review of the strategy and the collection of recommendations from stakeholders during monitoring are planned for 2024.

All the mentioned activities had the merit of making clear to the many stakeholders involved by SproSS the capacity of future-based methods to develop a shared understanding of forthcoming challenges.

Piedmont Employment Agency

Between 2021 and 2023, the Piedmont Employment Agency collaborated with SKOPIA Anticipation Services (affiliated with the University of Trento) to strengthen its ability to analyse and respond to current and emerging trends in the regional labour market.

The initiative began with a specialised training programme involving fifty local labour market experts. This was followed by a series of futures exercises using various methodologies, including the Futures Wheel, Back-casting, and the Three Horizons framework.

Beyond fostering a deeper understanding of Futures Studies, the key outcomes for the Piedmont Employment Agency included:

1. Enhanced Analytical Capacity – Improving the Agency’s ability to interpret changes in the regional labour market and respond to evolving social needs.

2. Workforce Development – Refining the professional profiles in the Agency by more precisely identifying the required knowledge, skills, and competencies.

3. Skills Development Programme – Establishing a structured training programme to strengthen the expertise of Agency professionals, particularly those responsible for producing regional labour market reports.

This initiative has helped the Piedmont Employment Agency adopt a more strategic and forward-looking approach, enabling it to better support workforce planning and policy development in the region.

Region Friuli Venezia Giulia

The inter-university research project Toward an Anticipatory Governance System (TAGS) – 2023-2025, co-ordinated by Professor Roberto Poli, aims at exploring the feasibility, the enabling conditions as well as the constraints for the implementation of anticipatory governance in the Public Administration (PA). It explores different perspectives and dimensions, related to the availability of pilot cases, the regulatory framework, the competence framework in public institutions.

The Case Study of the North Adriatic Hydrogen Valley, co-ordinated by the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (FVG Region), is an emblematic example of a study for the possible creation within it of a Strategic Foresight Unit (SFU) to support the transnational project’s steering committee. This Case Study has enjoyed the operational collaboration of SKOPIA Anticipation Services.

The pilot project was created as a response to the long-term (2050) climate objectives set by the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2045. The FVG Region first activated its scientific and research system of excellence and then involved private partners of high profile and international experience in the process of establishing a hydrogen valley in the Northern Adriatic area, intended as an integrated economic and social ecosystem on the entire hydrogen value chain from production to final use in industry and transport.

A strategic flagship project for the regional territory that operates on three levels: a) an internal one, to strengthen the co-ordination and competences of the regional offices, b) one dedicated to the dialogue with the territory and the production entities, and c) one in a macro-regional projection of co-operation with Slovenia and Croatia.

A complex and long-term undertaking that is ideal for verifying the possibility of incorporating a SFU through various stages of analysis (strategic interviews, training, future exercises) in order to achieve the formulation of possible articulations of the service as well as the perimeter of reference of the possible SFU.

Sources: SproSS - Report SproSS, SproSS def_15.10.2021 - Agenda 2030, Towards an Anticipatory Governance System (TAGS) - Unitus

Networks are considered valuable to stimulate the continuing development of strategic foresight capabilities in ministries, as well as the academic and private sectors, but these are a secondary priority to centre of government and regional capabilities.

Negative past experiences of government agencies in Italy caused participants to discount them as key players in the development of strategic foresight capacity.

Functions for strategic foresight institutions

The provision of methodological support, capability building and intelligence provision are considered early priorities to focus on in the development of strategic foresight capacity in Italy. Prioritising these will help to build awareness and legitimacy for strategic foresight. Facilitating experimentation, alternatives exploration and developing networks and partnerships are considered secondary functions, important when awareness of strategic foresight in Italy is sufficient.

Malta

Specific options for Malta regarding institutional structures for embedding capabilities

Centre of government

The centre of government has legitimacy to promote strategic foresight practices and capabilities horizontally and vertically across government. For this reason, in addition to Malta having a relatively small government, the institutionalisation of strategic foresight in Malta is likely to benefit from a centralised structure in which the centre of government is responsible for convening a network around strategic foresight and establishing expectations and standards for its application. As key partners, People and Standards could further develop skills frameworks which include strategic foresight, while the Institute for Public Service would be important to provide and co-ordinate training in strategic foresight and anticipatory governance for public officials.

Government agency or authority

Dedicated capacity in a government agency or authority is perceived as critical to the provision of methodological and analytical support, expertise, oversight and evaluation of strategic foresight practices across ministries and departments that is adapted and suited for use in policymaking in respective policy fields. The recently approved Climate Action Authority was raised as a potential model to explore. Based on past experience of similar units, such as the Management Efficiency Unit, it has been noted that any agency or authority in this position would be most effective in the role of an ‘enabling partner’ and methodological capacity support facilitator rather than a top-down instructor or enforcer of administrative rules. If a new institution is to be created, an agency would be simpler than an authority, which requires parliamentary approval. Any structure should balance the need for top-level support and mandate needed to sustain its operation in the long term with the autonomy needed to develop independent and unbiased research and advice, which is expected to at time conflict with the status quo understanding of policy issues as well as institutional norms and popular political agendas.

Cross-government network

A strong network of policymakers working with strategic foresight in different ministries would be beneficial to share good practices and intelligence generated through the application of strategic foresight and its interpretation into anticipatory governance decisions as well as more informal norm and consensus building, shared sense-making, and normative future vision development. Within ministries, strategic foresight capacities and network engagement could be the responsibility of Policy Development and Policy Implementation (PDPI) function and could play an essential role in disseminating knowledge and methods among policymakers across disciplines. This network could be managed by a secretariat in the centre of government while a government agency or other embedded unit for strategic foresight would provide support and expertise.

Advisory and oversight body

The involvement and oversight of an advisory body comprised of representatives from business, community and social partners, could help to provide legitimacy for decisions that are informed by strategic foresight. Building the understanding of such a body concerning approaches for and insights from strategic foresight would be important to deliver impact. An example of such a body exists already in the example of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD), which could be considered as a template for an advisory and oversight function.

Next steps and portfolios for action

This section outlines key considerations for advancing the institutionalisation of strategic foresight in Lithuania, Italy, and Malta. In each case, the lessons learned have been drawn from a combination of stakeholder feedback on earlier versions of assessment reports and facilitated sessions tailored to the specific needs of each country.

For Lithuania, the considerations emerged from an action planning session with a dedicated working group focused on preparing and supporting the development of a strategic foresight White Book. This collaboration emphasised priority areas and actionable steps for weaving foresight activities into national policy planning and operationalisation of the public administration.

In Italy, insights were shaped through a workshop held in Rome, with stakeholders from key ministries, including the SNA, Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security (MASE), and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI). This engagement identified relevant institutional entry points and underscored strategic directions tailored to Italy’s policy and foresight landscape.

For Malta, discussions with the OECD and the Co-ordination and Implementation Division of the Office of the Prime Minister generated specific considerations, drawing attention to Malta’s unique context and the pathways for strengthening foresight capabilities within its governance structures. These considerations are illustrated through concrete proposed foresight structures at the centre of government and ministerial levels.

Together, these tailored considerations and lessons offer a comprehensive view of each country’s institutional potential for foresight which support their respective pathways to building futures practices in governance.

Lithuania

Key considerations with strategic foresight functions

• Implementation: There is an implementation gap in Lithuania where functions exist nominally ("ghost functions") without actual work being done in the field of foresight.

• Ambiguity: “Facilitating experimentation and alternatives exploration” was a function carried out by STRATA’s Policy Lab. However, there appears to be a clear absence of this function, with mandates existing but with no actionable steps taken.

• Oversight and Evaluation: Although mentioned to have been done in some kind of form by GovTech, oversight and evaluation was viewed to fall short of expectations. As per OECD criteria, this is understood to be crucial for ex-ante evaluation of long-term planning documents and assessing the sustainability of desired impacts.

• Roles and responsibilities: Pathways for improvement can clearly define and distinguish functions and responsibilities of each institution, especially concerning strategic foresight practice and required capabilities. As posited by the OECD (2021), STRATA’s operations need to be strengthened to support the implementation of its 2021-2025 strategy and “facilitate an adaptation of STRATA’s governance and organisational structure in line with the new functions so that they match its new mandate” (p. 132).

Key considerations for leveraging existing organisational capacities

• Impactful but not being done: Several functions identified with high potential impact on Lithuania's foresight capabilities are not currently being undertaken. Notably, the functions "Distributed sense-making, consensus building and exploratory body," and "Alternatives exploration”. The latter with potential to be undertaken by STRATA.

• Taking stock of existing capabilities: Functions such as “Widespread practice based methodological capacity building" and “Network convener" are executed to some extent by CPMA and STRATA, both for foresight and evidence-based practice. This indicates that while foundational work is in place, there can be opportunities to further expand these activities' scope, depth, or effectiveness to fully leverage their potential impact on futures-oriented policy and decision making.

• Integration and co-ordination: There are challenges related to knowledge silos, integration, and co-ordination across different organisations and sectors. The importance of “breaking down” silos through leadership, dedicated bodies, and culture suggest that enhancing cross-functional collaboration and creating conditions conducive to intersectoral dialogue and co-operation are critical for maximising the impact of foresight activities.

• By-products of an established foresight ecosystem: The need for "Training and workshop delivery on strategic foresight topics" and the role of "Network conveners" are functions for capacity building and community engagement in creating a culture of futures-oriented thinking and action. These functions are essential for equipping civil servants and organisations with the skills and knowledge needed to effectively participate in and contribute to Lithuania's foresight ecosystem. Yet, these as well as the functions “Review or oversight of laws for consideration of futures generations” can be perceived as by-products or conditionalities of an established foresight ecosystem and not a current priority for a nascent ecosystem.

Building a portfolio and framework of action

Together with the OECD, the White Book working group mapped and prioritised the 27 functions in terms of their impact, i.e., sustained focus on anticipatory governance and a successful execution of LT2050, and which functions are performed most and less frequently.

For each area in the resulting map of functional options, the OECD proposed the following descriptions:

• Options that are high impact, but few capabilities exist represent "uncertain heavy lifts."

• Options that are high impact and many existing capabilities exist represent "immediate investment" areas. 

• Options with less impact and few existing capabilities exist represent potential luxuries. 

• Options with less impact and many existing capabilities represent "quick wins and proofs of concept".

For each descriptive area in the resulting map, the OECD also proposed some suggested actions which would apply to each functional option placed in that zone. Specific implementation of that function would need to be defined based on what is suitable and feasible in Lithuania (see Table 7.1 below).

Table A ‎D.1. Portfolio for actions

Portfolio area	Options for action	Related functions identified by White Book group
Immediate investment	Develop roadmaps, define roles Identify barriers for why it has not happened yet Co-ordinate existing capabilities Establish task forces	Stand-alone advisory capability between policy areas providing methodological support Network convener (regions, agencies, etc.) Policy consensus-building capability Sector-based strategic foresight knowledge providers Punctual or sustained representative council/committee advising politicians on future issues Widespread practice-based methodological capacity building Templates and guidance for design of federated strategic foresight units Analysis support for policy development
Uncertain heavy lifts	Commission studies Learn from peers Inventory wider ecosystem  Build partnerships Invest in capability building	Distributed sense-making, consensus building and exploratory body Service futures – oriented towards future needs of public service Emerging technology analysis Directive body inputting on government agenda Change management or capability building (skills and infrastructure) Public values detection and legitimacy building for alternate policy approaches Alternatives exploration and experimentation lab with special status/exemptions Experiment with emerging technologies Evaluation of the future horizons of programmes of government Creation of a safe space/space to challenge assumptions Ministerial futures advisor on a specific agenda Participatory futures – harvesting and sense-making, convening external stakeholders for visioning, scenario development, scanning Uncovering and testing assumptions of decision makers
Quick wins and proofs of concept	Build and show momentum  Build upon successes; scale up Delegate action to where capability resides	Training and workshop delivery on strategic foresight topics
Luxuries	Only invest if it serves another purpose or builds important capabilities	Inter-ministerial advisory capability working on specific strategic foresight projects Review or oversight of laws for consideration of futures/future generations Centralised capability supporting transversal and connected capabilities
Unknown zone	Seek more information	Centralised advisory capability producing/distributing high-level analysis/megatrends Transition function between agendas / terms to support continuity

Next steps and proposed action plan

Strategic discussions can additionally examine reasons behind current performance levels and identify systemic barriers. Although the foresight system in Lithuania is nascent it is valuable to continue to learn from best practices in other countries and their organisational foresight structures that have supported them in developing a sustainable and institutionalised system.

A first draft of the White Book can provide a basis for further consultation and discussion with stakeholders, present proposals for whole-of-government commitment, and introduce a strategic reference document for national objectives in anticipatory governance.

Below are initial next steps that were expected to be followed after the session with the working group and a proposed action plan (see Table 7.2)

• Test the resulting portfolio map with a wider group of stakeholders to confirm the correct placement of each function option.

• Address each function option based on the suggested options for action in each zone based on what makes sense for Lithuania, arrangement of existing capabilities in the ecosystem, and assessment of interest and ability to act.

• Further discuss function options in the unknown zone, possibly with a wider group, to gather more information for a deeper assessment.

Table A ‎D.2. Proposed action plan for institutional structures and roles for embedding strategic foresight

Category	Action(s)	Responsible Actors	KPI’s and success metrics
Strategic foresight functions	Clarify and revise functions in the portfolio map and clearly define responsibilities related to strategic foresight in organisations.	Office of the Government, Strategic Management Unit and Committee for the Future	Outline of revised functions and assigned organisations based on Lithuania’s capacity and best practices from peer countries.
Strategic foresight institutionalisation	Institutionalise strategic foresight – develop and formalise dedicated strategic foresight units in key government departments and agencies	Government departments and agencies with oversight from the State Progress Council	Development of operational strategic foresight units/teams.
Inter-agency collaboration and cross-fertilisation	Create cross-sectoral and inter-agency networks and communities of practice to ensure the sharing of information and practices across government and society.	Committee for the Future, National Library, GovTech and STRATA	Development of whole-of-government or sectoral foresight communities of practice, bi-monthly network meetings, number of participating organisations, and number of participants.
Strategic foresight capacity and capability building	Implement capacity building programmes on strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation governance.	STRATA, Committee for the Future, Public Procurement Office in partnership with the Central Project Management Agency, academic institutions and training centres.	Yearly number of trained civil servants.
Implement, monitor and evaluate high-impact functions in the portfolio map	Prioritise and initiate projects that focus on high-impact functions e.g., distributed sense-making, alternatives exploration and emerging technology analysis	STRATA and Committee for the Future	Launch at least 2-3 foresight projects each year, and produce a “government report on the future” for each political cycle.

Italy

Key considerations towards the Italian strategic foresight system

The development of strategic foresight and anticipatory governance practices in Italy remains at an early stage due to several factors:

• Italy's traditional system prioritises legal procedures over evidence-based approaches

• Strategic planning is primarily driven by economic and fiscal considerations in the Legge di Bilancio (Budget Law)

• Political instability, with 64 governments since 1948, discourages long-term planning

In addition, academia and think tanks have not strongly promoted strategic foresight, as seen in countries such as Finland. However, the influence of the European Union and international organisations, particularly the OECD, UN and NATO have significantly contributed, over the past decade, in advancing strategic planning and integrating foresight in Italian policymaking. This progress is most evident in the efforts of five ministries: the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, and Civil Protection Department (see Figure 7.1). For example:

• The Ministry of Economy and Finance, specifically at the Department of Treasury, has focused on disseminating foresight methodologies, establishing guidelines, and integrating strategic foresight methods into work processes.

• The Ministry of Environment and Energy Security is aligning foresight activities with the Italian National Strategy for Sustainable Development.

• The Ministry of External Affairs employs diverse foresight techniques and methodologies, leveraging technology to support its initiatives towards preparedness and response capabilities.

Figure A ‎D.1. Main actors in Italy’s foresight ecosystem

Source: Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione (SNA) 2024.

Initially, efforts aimed to establish a foresight unit at the centre of government. However, insights gained from the LIMinal project with the OECD highlighted the importance of applying a broader ecosystem approach. Consequently, Italy’s National School of Administration (SNA) plays a pivotal role in developing this foresight ecosystem across government institutions. Since 2020, SNA has conducted foresight training for public officials and plans to introduce new training initiatives, participate in research projects, develop post-graduate training and build communities of practice to further disseminate foresight capacities in the public administration.

Progress and next steps

SNA has played an important role in implementing strategic foresight knowledge, skills and capabilities, and collaborative frameworks for the Italian public administration. SNA’s approach is grounded in structured training, research, and working towards creating a foresight community of practice that will connect public administration with academia, research institutions, and stakeholders. The following Table 7.3 provides an overview of SNA’s current and future initiatives in four categories: in-service training, research projects, networking, and post-graduate training.

Table A ‎D.3. Current and future strategic foresight initiatives

Initiatives	Purpose	Actions taken or in progress
In-service training	Develop foresight skills across the public administration and promote ministerial engagement with foresight activities for policy formulation, coherence, recommendation and innovation.	Courses on futures studies, megatrends, strategic foresight, anticipatory governance.
Research projects	Build legitimacy, advance research and develop collaboration efforts between international organisations, public administration, academia and society.	TSI LIMinal Project (with EU DG Reform and OECD) - National University Research Project (PRIN, Tuscia University)
Networking	Build a collaborative foresight ecosystem in public administration and engage broader stakeholders.	Connecting and sharing foresight experiences among ministries - Establishing a community of practice with public administration, universities, and research institutes
Post-graduate training	Develop academic and training programmes for specialised foresight knowledge for senior leaders, policymakers and foresight producers.	PhD and Master’s research programmes

The next planned steps (see Table 7.4 below) are a roadmap for SNA’s future activities (December 2024 through to the end of 2025). These are the continuous provisions of structured exercises in ministries to the launch of a master's programme on strategic foresight for policy officers. Each step contributes to promoting foresight as a core element of governance, with a focus on real-world application, collaboration, and advanced training. Furthermore, SNA has organised a Laboratory on strategic foresight and anticipatory governance for the Italian public administration. In collaboration with ministries, this Laboratory was also aimed to generate a draft action plan for the institutionalisation of strategic foresight at the centre of government.

Table A ‎D.4. SNA’s strategic foresight roadmap and next planned steps

Next steps	Timeline	Objective
Develop and consolidate a report on the institutionalisation of strategic foresight.	December 2024	Drawing from insights generated during the laboratory and incubator of change with ministries, this document is aimed to set Italy’s progress in integrating foresight at the centre of government.
Strategic foresight exercises with ministries	Spring 2025	Transition from training to practical strategic foresight applications, involving ministries in real-world exercises.
Build a community of practice	First semester 2025	Establish a community of practice with ministries, regions, universities, and research institutes for foresight practice-sharing and break down knowledge silos.
Complementary qualitative strategy on civil servants’ perception of the future	Second semester 2025	Assess how top civil servants perceive the challenges and opportunities for the future of the Italian public administration.
Master’s programme on strategic foresight for policy officers	Through 2025	In collaboration with Centro Alti Studi Difesa (CASD), launch a master’s programme to specialise policy officers.

Malta

Key considerations towards institutionalising strategic foresight

Centralised Unit

In Malta, a centralised strategic foresight structure is proposed (see Figure 7.2 and Table 7.5) to be connected to the highest levels of government (see diagram below), with the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) creating demand for foresight work. The Prime Minister can play a role in championing the integration of strategic foresight across the public administration, mandating different units, divisions, and ministries to employ foresight methods to inform decision-making processes and shape the national policy agenda. This approach could ensure that foresight work gains both demand and legitimacy in order to align closely with national strategic objectives.

Within this structure, the Office of the Principal Permanent Secretary (OPPS) would be responsible for operationalising foresight initiatives. The OPPS delegates the preparation of 'Futures Outlook' reports (delivered to Parliament during each parliamentary term) to a strategic foresight unit housed within the Co-ordination and Implementation Division (C&I). The C&I Foresight Unit would oversee the institutionalisation of foresight practices throughout the public administration and co-ordinates with various ministries to ensure a cohesive approach to futures-oriented policy development. It would be tasked with the co-ordination of foresight work of all other ministries, but also it can carry out its own foresight work in respect of topics of interest to the public administration.

A key advantage of this structure is that the foresight team within C&I will be able to report directly to OPPS. However, there are organisational challenges that C&I and other institutions may encounter when communicating foresight outputs and knowledge to leadership. For example, a potential hurdle is that C&I may not have direct communication or reporting with the Prime Minister, as their communication must pass through the OPPS. To address this, C&I needs to develop a clear communication strategy and maintain open channels to propose and send briefing reports directly to the Prime Minister. Further, communication and interaction should also be established among foresight units, foresight networks and the Institute for the Public Services (IPS). Specifically, for IPS these collaborative efforts are fundamental for effective co-ordination of foresight trainings.

The Office of the Permanent Secretary of the People & Standards Division (P&S) is tasked in this structure with ensuring that resources are effectively allocated for developing and delivering strategic foresight capabilities across the public administration. This effort is supported by the IPS, which not only builds foresight capabilities but can also design and commission a foresight curriculum and competency model.

The Policy Development and Programme Implementation Directorate (PDPI) of the OPM could integrate a foresight unit or network that liaises with foresight producers, external stakeholders, and facilitates inter-ministerial foresight collaboration. The PDPI of the OPM would leverage resources from EU and international bodies to promote stakeholder dialogues and provide foresight tools tailored to specific policy areas. An example of this network building is receiving input from a “Futures Review Council” that can assess long-term implications and provide futures-oriented review and legitimacy to policy and legislation. Although not specified in the structure, MCESD could provide a governance template for this council.

Figure A ‎D.2. Proposed strategic foresight centralised structure for Malta

Source: OECD

Table A ‎D.5. Entities and functions of Malta’s centralised structure

Entity and Institution	Function(s)
Office of the Prime-Minister	Creates demand for foresight work to inform decision-making Champions the integration of strategic foresight across the public administration, mandating different units, divisions, and ministries to employ foresight methods to inform decision-making processes and shape the national policy agenda
Office of the Principal Permanent Secretary	Delegates the preparation and communicates the results of 'Futures Outlook' reports Responsible for operationalising foresight initiatives
Co-ordination and Implementation Division	Develops a clear communication strategy of foresight projects Through its foresight unit, i) assists in setting up of foresight units in ministries, ii) co-ordinates futures work of all ministries, iii) co-ordinates transition between agendas and ensures the continuity of foresight work
Policy Development and Programme Implementation Directorate at OPM	Liaises and facilitates inter-ministerial foresight collaboration Through its foresight network, builds network engagement with policymakers and external stakeholders to share good practices and foresight intelligence
Office of the Permanent Secretary (People & Standards)	Allocates resources for the development and delivery for foresight training programmes
Institute for the Public Services	Builds foresight capabilities across government Commissions a foresight curriculum and competency model
Futures Review Council (no assigned entity or institution)	Comprised of representatives from business, community and social partners, would bring futures-oriented review and legitimacy for policy and legislation

Ministerial Unit

Each ministry is encouraged to establish a dedicated foresight unit which would carry out some the functional options proposed by the OECD (see Figure 4.7 below, presenting a generic diagram of a ministerial foresight unit below). The strategic foresight unit at C&I would provide guidance and oversight for the implementation and institutionalisation of strategic foresight across ministries. Notably, the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Research (MEYR) has already demonstrated commitment by appointing a director for strategic foresight, which has reflected a strong intent to embedding these practices. According to the proposed structure, each ministerial foresight unit should be positioned within the Policy Development and Programme Implementation directorate of the respective ministry. In cases where these are two distinct functions and may report to a director general, the Policy Development directorate would be the most suitable to host a strategic foresight unit.

The unit will be composed of personnel from various departments and affiliated organisations in each ministry selected through an internal call for applications or expressions of interest. Staff will receive training aligned with the OECD’s capacity building programmes and will initially focus on scoping, utilising existing knowledge inputs, such as environmental scans, situation reports, risk assessments, EU reports, and insights from local and international think tanks. This foundation is aimed to enable a consolidated analysis of relevant information for policy development. During this process, the unit can engage in dialogues with stakeholders and policymakers from other ministries, potentially at a political level which will encourage co-ordination and whole-of-government coherence.

As illustrated in Figure 7.3, this diagram extends C&I’s proposed structure and offers a detailed view of how a foresight unit in each PDPI directorate might be organised. The diagram includes a Head of Unit to lead the team and set strategic direction. The Head of Unit would be supported by a Deputy Head responsible for operational management, communication and strategic alignment. The Foresight Practitioners form the core team and would be under the guidance of a principal strategist. This staff would be tasked with executing a variety of optional functions adapted to each ministry’s foresight needs. The diagram and structure are intended to serve as a scalable and adaptable framework. Furthermore, the optional functions should be based on the ministry’s unique priorities.

Figure A ‎D.3. Organisational diagram of a Ministerial Foresight Unit with OECD optional functions

Source: OECD