The central objectives of this study were to identify:

 It is not reasonable to expect that all of the following recommendations can be implemented in every application of futures research for decisionmaking. Nevertheless, the more of these that can be done, the greater the likelihood of successful implementation of futures research in decisionmaking will be.

1. Make sure leaders or decisionmaker(s) to whom the information is intended know what futures research is and is not, are interested in the process, have requested the activity, and all those involved in the process are clear about the objectives and mission of the activity. Ideally, this would include a statement of what the decisionmaker(s) would consider to be a successful outcome.
2. Confirm that futures research has or will have a formal connection to the strategic planning process that is understood by all involved and that they understand that futures research provides a framework for thoughtful discussion, rather than predictions.
3. In addition to the decisionmaker(s), identify and work with a champion of the activity within the organization.
4. If the decisionmaker(s) lack the knowledge or do not understand the complexities of the issues about which they must decide, include workshops or training during the research. As appropriate use simulations or models showing complex interdependence of events, policies, and consequences of actions that can challenge stereotypical thinking. If possible, include discussion of the moral barriers to timely decisionmaking.
5. Integrate the producers of futures research and the decisionmaker(s) into the overall process as much as possible.
6. Information should not be limited to quantifiable projections, but include rich subjective descriptions of alternative futures that makes future possibilities more real for the decisionmaker(s).
7. Include diverse different interests groups and key actors in the research process to make sure that the information is created about how a contemplated decision may affect stakeholders and to reduce subsequent political impediments. Enlist the support of people in this process who will use or be affected by the activity.
8. If there is a lack of clear-cut strategy and goals for the futures research to address, then include this as an issue in the research.
9. Determine who has the responsibility to act on the information, if no one, then make this an issue in the research, and if appropriate, bring this to the news media. Similarly, determine if there is adequate coordination among responsible departments, if not, then make this an issue in the research as well.
10. Include the decisionmaker(s) in the research process to counter any lack of a long-term views and shot-term dominance over more distant future considerations.
11. Use at least one formal method that is understandable to all involved.
12. Provide information that demonstrates unequivocally that a crisis is pending to counter institutional inertia.
13. Include knowledge about what is possible, such as technological changes, to counter disbelief that change is impossible. Include information about the success or failure of other institutions and countries that had similar problems and have attempted to implement policies. If possible cite inspiring success stories.
14. Make options or recommendations simple, clear, and precise and deliver them in political, cultural and social (non-technical) terms, connected to goals and strategies.
15. Demonstrate the technical feasibility of recommendations including required personal, institutional, and technological changes to counter decisionmaker's fear of failure.
16. Connect the costs to the benefits of the recommendations to increase the willingness to pay. Decisionmakers and political leaders have used "financial impediments" as an excuse not to act; but tend not to see finance as the primary reason for inaction.
17. If the information and data are inaccurate, unreliable, conflicting, and/or insufficient, then expose the problem, collect best judgements, and suggest ways of making decisions within the uncertain environment.
18. If possible, include the intended actions of related institutions, lobbyists, decisionmakers related to the recommendations.
19. Develop and popularize appropriate indicators in coordination with other related institutions in the design and implementation of policy recommendations.
20. Use testimony of eminent scientists, including information of their estimates about probability and risks associated with issues and their policy solutions.
21. Clarify the forecasted condition with and without action, as set of long-term scenarios, ranging from dreadful to positive.
22. Establish linkages to other similar activities in government and industry, here and abroad, so that diverse inputs are possible and inputs can flow from non-conventional sources.
23. Be innovative in the method of presenting findings to avoid information overload.
24. In addition to more analytic methods, include a workshop toward the end of the research to give time for individuals, including the decisionmaker(s), to integrate the concepts in their thinking in a group setting.
25. Consider how to include the media in the issue in consultation with the decisionmaker(s). Examples include making the research available on the Internet, holding press conferences, opening communications with public communities and other research institutions, and even consider how to popularize the work via cooperation between artists (e.g. Spielberg) and futurists in film, television, and other media.
26. Make the work continuous and cumulative so that what is learned in one iteration is carried over to the next. It should not be a one time event, but an on-going process of feeding information to the decision process and responding to feedback from impacts.

Generic On-Going Process of Foresight  (to be inserted)