A foresight strategy for future generations

This paper briefly considers three key areas where forward thinking is particularly vital: education, business and government. Drawing mainly upon examples from the Australian context, it suggests a broad rationale for establishing a ‘national foresight strategy’. The latter is supported by a more general model for developing social foresight. A further stimulus to forward thinking and future vision is to consider what advice future generations might offer us if they had the chance.     

Normality of the future: Trend diagnosis for strategic foresight

Foresight processes and activities are confronted with the task of making sense of the present, in particular by interpreting weak signals of change in the organizational environment. Although trends are considered to be important drivers of environmental discontinuities which may lead to strategic surprises, there is no operationalization from a strategic point of view. In this paper we are going to conceptualize trends as (socio-cultural) innovations. This leads to important implications. If the nature of innovation is taken seriously, then strategic trend diagnosis has to deal with two different aspects, invention and diffusion. First, we are going to present a framework for identifying the invention aspect of a trend (i.e., “the new”) which is based on the fact that “the new” results from a transgression of contextual boundaries. Second, we are going to operationalize the diffusion of “the new” as a threefold process of normalization - i.e., an unusual practice becomes social convention. Taken together, these two aspects provide a theoretical link between trends and market creation. In addition, by relating the above operationalizations to an entrepreneurial strategy-making framework, strategic issue diagnosis can be improved and more seamlessly linked to strategy formulation.     

Probing the future: Mobilising foresight in multiple-product innovation firms

With rapid changes in technology and intense competition in the business environment the importance of cultivating and sustaining foresight in multiple-product innovation firms has been propelled to unprecedented heights. Yet, research on the processes through which such firms mobilise foresight in their working environment remains scarce. This paper seeks to explore the different processes through which a high-performing new product design consultancy probes into the future aiming to identify possible avenues for product development and potentially define trends in multiple industries. This inductive, theory-building study identifies seven key processes and stresses the importance of perpetual probing and learning for sustaining foresight in such high-change environments.     

The social shaping approach to technology foresight

The social shaping of technology (SST) approach has been developed as a response and extension to the ideas of techno-economic rationality and linear conceptions of technology development and its consequences. The SST approach seems especially promising in areas of technology where visions are manifold, societal interests conflicting, and applications and markets are non-existing or still under construction. The emerging high technology areas and several areas of more sustainable development like organic food production and renewable energy are examples of this kind, where techno-economic networks are unstable or under construction and social and environmental potentials and risks difficult, if not impossible to assess. The paper explores the potential of a social shaping of technology approach to technology foresight within such technology areas and presents the methodological aspects herein: structure versus contingency, actor-network approach, laboratory programmes, techno-economic networks, actor worlds, development arenas. Experiences based on a recent Danish green technology foresight project concerned with environmental risks and opportunities related to nano-, bio- and ICT-technologies and foresight activities in relation to food are used as empirical references.     

Fear of foresight: Knowledge and ignorance in organizational foresight

We discuss the changes occurring in the field of organizational foresight. The analysis results from viewing foresight from two different perspectives: as centered on the future or on the present; as macroscopic analysis or microscopic practice. The combination of these factors results in four different modes of organizational foresight: strategic planning, visioning, scenario thinking and planned emergence. These different perspectives are examined. We contribute to the literature by presenting foresight as a complex process, amenable to different understandings. Foresight is often portrayed as a technical and analytic process. We discuss it as a human process permeated by a dialectic between the need to know and the fear of knowing.     

Designing a foresight exercise for the future of rural communities in Romania

The paper aims to offer a good guideline for anyone who intends to do a futures or a foresight exercise for rural communities. The case presented is the one of the future of rural communities in Romania. The article begins with a brief presentation of the prevailing rural situation in Romania followed by a dialogue regarding suggestions for the possible objectives of a foresight exercise and the methods used (e.g. visioning, alternative futures, scenarios).     

The role of hindsight in foresight: refining strategic reasoning

The purpose of this paper is to deepen understanding of the role that hindsight plays in foresight. The authors argue that the past is not an isolated static state, but one that is intimately connected with the future. However, there are several biases that influence our perceptions and conceptions of the past. These biases act as constraints on our ability to understand the driving forces that emerge from the past, play out through the present and become the critical uncertainties in the future. They could result in misperceptions about events or processes and so may impair foresight methodologies, such as scenario thinking. Such a foresight bias is characterized by a combination of hindsight biases, creeping determinism and searching for information that corresponds to people’s views about both the past and the future.The cognitive linkages between past, present and future are discussed and the role of counter-to-factual analysis is emphasized as an antidote to the foresight bias. Counter-to-factual analysis is both a cognitive process and an analytical reasoning tool applied to the analysis of historical data. Using insights generated from the explorations of counter-to-factual reasoning, the authors present a hindsight-foresight paragon that fortifies current foresight enhancing techniques with counter-to-factual analysis.

Two Roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

To where it bent in the undergrowth…

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost

Men’s curiosity searches past and future

And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend

The point of intersection of the timeless

With time, is an occupation for the saint—

T. S. Eliot, from The Dry Salvages     

On the nurturing of strategic foresight: The Ubuntu perspective

We draw on ideas from the African humanistic philosophy of Ubuntu with existing approaches to propose alternative ways of nurturing strategic foresight in practice. Delineating Ubuntu as a transient organizing philosophy, we show how the integration of Ubuntu in everyday organizing could enhance relational pluralism, and in-turn strategic foresight. Embarking on some mild speculative expedition based on ideas from Ubuntu, we also outline some activities and organizing routines of team leaders that may contribute to encouraging employees to enact ‘foresightful’ actions in their situated practice. We conclude with implications of our study for organizing and some directions for futureresearch.     

Learning ahead of time: how evaluation of foresight may add to increased trust,organizational learning and future oriented policy and strategy

Evaluation of futures research (foresight) consists of three elements: quality, success, and impact of a study. Futures research ought to be methodologically and professionally sound, should to a certain extent be accurate, and should have a degree of impact on strategic decision making and policy-making. However, in the case of futures studies, the one does not automatically lead to the other. Quality of method does not ensure success, just as quality and success do not guarantee impact. This article explores the new paths for understanding evaluating of futures studies that are provided by the various articles in this special issue and sets out an agenda for next steps with regard to evaluation of futures research. The more structural and systematic evaluation can result in an increased level of trust in futures research, which may in turn lead to more future oriented strategy, policy and decision making. Therefore, evaluation should be seen as more than a burden of accountability – albeit important as accountability is – but as an investment in the credibility and impact of the profession. It may set in motion a cycle of mutual learning that will not only improve the capacity of futures-researchers but will also enhance the capacity and likeliness of decision-makers to apply insight from futures research.     

Extending foresight: The case for and nature of Foresight 2.0

This a programmatic paper with all of the frustrations thereof [1]. We point beyond the well-tilled ground of foresight as commonly practiced (called Foresight 1.0) to an emerging understanding of the work and character of foresight (called Foresight 2.0). By definition, as of today, this new territory is not well mapped, much less carefully worked-over. The question that drives this commitment to Foresight 2.0 was the heart of the 2007 Strathclyde Organizational Foresight Conference—Learning the Future Faster: “Can foresight as commonly practiced enable us to learn the future fast enough to meet and deal with the unique strategic challenges of the 21st Century?” The view taken is that Foresight 1.0 cannot meet this challenge; that it leads to small victories and major disasters. An explanation is offered: Foresight 1.0 was developed, and is still largely practiced, with the eyes and mind of management, whereas sustained success in the unique conditions of the 21st Century requires Foresight 2.0—seeing, thinking and acting with the eyes and mind of Leadership. This distinction is explained. Evidence is offered that futures research and foresight are slowly moving towards this new practice. The hope is expressed that, if we grasp the need for it, the nature of it and have explicit mental maps of the journey to it, we who are professional foresight researchers and practitioners will move faster and more effectively to develop Foresight 2.0. Several steps towards this end are outlined.     

Corporate foresight and innovation management: A portfolio-approach in evaluating organizational development

The transition from a traditional industry-driven economy to a knowledge-based economy requires new concepts and methods for companies to sustain competitive advantage. Here, academia has identified corporate foresight and innovation as key success factors. While, content-wise, the contribution of futures research methods to the innovation process has already been researched, this study strives to explore the status quo of organizational development stages of both concepts. To do so, we developed a portfolio-approach, the so-called ‘Future-Fitness-Portfolio’, which enables companies to qualitatively compare amongst others and identify organizational improvement potential. In addition, we conducted expert interviews to explore future organizational development trends in corporate foresight and innovation management. As our research revealed, five strategic clusters can be identified within the portfolio. Consequently, we propose specific strategies for each individual cluster. We conclude that there will be two main organizational development trends for corporate foresight and innovation management in the future: in traditional industries with conventional business models and long product-life-cycles, companies will follow a different development path than companies in dynamic industries with innovative business models and short product-life-cycles.     

Effacing the political future: A response to interfutures

Political change within industrial countries will accompany the restructuring of economies and international relations in the 1980s. The most detailed study of alternative scenarios involving the latter issues—the interfutures report—treats domestic politics in terms of notions of value change. This article criticises these widespread ideas. Futures studies need to take political trends seriously, including those towards corporatism and the strong state. In this light the development of the informal sector can be no panacea for problems of political and economic power.     

The state of foresight in food and agriculture: Challenges for impact and participation

1. Download : Download high-res image (155KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

How foresight creates unforeseen futures: the role of doubting

This paper defines foresight as being a mental model about the future and considers the role of foresight in shaping actions and events reflected in imperious, heroic, tragic and chaotic futures (defined within the paper). The paper contends that success in foresight is not about acquiring knowledge or using it to build pictures about the future. Rather, it is the expectations that come with such processes that cause organisational closure, and thus chaotic and tragic futures. The argument is made that firms need to doubt much more than they do.Two processes of doubting are described: the first (single loop doubting) shows how differences between expectations and perception cause doubt that (whenever the underlying mental model is sufficiently plastic) is accommodated by social processes without change. The second process, called double loop doubting, is based on genuine attempts to refute, rather than confirm, mental models about the future. The contention is that such processes would lower expectations and certainty, thereby opening the organisation and enabling mental models to be more accurate.

“I fear there can be no possible doubt about the matter”.

Jack in The Importance of Being Ernest, Oscar Wilde     

Enhancing foresight between multiple agencies: Issues in the use of scenario thinking to overcome fragmentation

We critically compare two illustrative cases where local government and partner organisations sought substantive grounds for collaboration on e-government, by gaining foresight from the application of the scenario methodology. On the basis of our case analyses, we show that inter-organisational fragmentation may be attenuated by the application of scenario method—which acts to enhance inter-organisational foresight. We demonstrate that the scenario method achieves this by promoting a non-adversarial, strategic conversation that can enable new and creative insights to be gained across the participant agencies. However, on the basis of one of the cases, we propose the need for early critical consideration of the influencing role of the project sponsor/leader within such a collaborative network.