Future Savvy: Quality in Foresight

Publication of the Institute for the Future’s “Map of Future Forces Affecting Sustainability” on the same day that it is revealed that Sir Fred Goodwin (50) of failed & baled Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will get a £693,000 (about $1,000,000) a year payment for the rest of his life, gets me thinking about short-termism and its entrenchment.

The IFTF’s full map is available for download here.  Quick aside: these maps, putting complex forces into visuals, have defined IFTF’s public (and client, one presumes) communications for over five years, and have raised the bar of excellence in the foresight communications. The company has produced many such outstanding maps, some publicly available.

The new map and Sir Fred-gate are unrelated of course. But here was the connection for me: The IFTF map lists six “Key Driving Forces” (2007-2017) in the area of sustainability, and the first is:
“An Imperative for Looking Long: The 21st century will test our ability to grasp the future impacts of present choices, but even as we struggle to incorporate future knowledge into our day-to-day decisions, we’re tuning up our bodies and minds and even our cultural frameworks for a much longer view.”

My question is, “really?” Is the long view really a driver – something that will drive change and shape the future? Or do we hope it is. Are we trying to talk it into being?

No question that the long-term view is crucial. Solving just about any social, technological, or environmental problem requires sustained long-term action. And everyone who works in foresight keeps evangelizing long-termism. But, in fact, what we have in industry and government is rampant short-termism and there is no indication this will change, despite the crisis and many heartfelt calls.

Linking big to long

The problem with Sir Goodwin’s package (in career and in retirement) is that the reward numbers were based on short-term company returns. “Hey, we made lots of money this year, so you get a big bonus, and you get a big bonus,” etc. But a few years down the line  – in the long term – it turns out that no bonuses were valid (if a bonus is, truly, a reward for success).

Put it another way: in finance, as in other aspects of society, technology, and the environment, we don’t know if we’ve succeeded or failed until the long-term numbers are in. Few would have a problem with handsome rewards for a valuable job well done, but those rewards must surely be delayed, and delayed, until we are in command of the long view of the performance.

Easy in theory, hard in practice. Perhaps impossible in practice when most politicians and legislators are themselves on a short 3-7 year cycle, like CEOs. I have some inkling from the IFTF map that the thinking is that life-extending technologies will improve to the point where people will really see themselves in for the long haul, and so adopt a longer perspective on benefits and rewards.

Time on the clock

Perhaps. But, life-technologies aside, plenty of decision-makers – Goodwin included – still have a lot of time left on the clock and that doesn’t appear to stop them chasing and cashing in short-term incentives at the expense of the future. Or legislators (and the public who votes them in) structuring performance rating on our immediate perception of their performance.

What we have, and what we have increasingly had (the trend) over the past few decades, is systemic short-termism. Winning in the next annual report or the next election is what what leaders’ rewards are based on. Incentives for politicians or business leaders or even scientists or engineers to make a better world for 2025 or 2050 are negligable.

Until there is reason to anticipate that this fundamental underlying short-term incentive structure and mentality changes (that is – convince me – who will change it and how?) the future savvy perspective must say that the “long-term imperative” remains a nice sound-bite, but not a material driver of anything.

Tweet This Post

It’s the week of the 81st Academy Awards and this means my automated Internet searches for future predictions are bunged up with blogger & media pundits predicting whether it’s going to be Brad Pitt or Sean Penn; Kate Winslet over Angelina Jolie; Slumdog Millionaire or The Reader, etc. This is just the fun-of-the-fair forecasting of course. But, turns out there are some significant things to talk about from a Future Savvy point of view.

First, there is the prediction game on offer from ABC, taglined: “The Oscars Live Challenge: Think you can Predict a Winner? Make Your Picks Now!”

It’s all part of the marketing drive of course, but, nevertheless how would one play it best and what might that tell us? Let’s assume there is something at stake, like you’re really going to sit in front of the TV and mark off your right vs. wrong predictions, and compare your score with that of your spouse for year-long bragging rights – now there’s pressure – how would you predict? Would you think (a) “this is the best movie so I predict it will win”? Hardly. You would think: (b) “this is the one that I think most people will pick, so that’s the one I think will win.”

You would be making a meta-prediction – going with what you think most are going to choose. In this particular case you would also know that that Oscar winners are chosen by balloting the 6,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So your more exact question would be: who is this special group likely to choose in each category?

What’s going on? In future situations that are heavily dependent on aggregate human choices – which is very many situations – the savviest predicting strategy is to figure out the choices most people are going to make. Oscars aside, figuring out the choices most people will make on any issue – hybrid cars, tighter securities legislation, public health care, etc. – is an excellent guide to what will really happen. It’s a mass market-led view of the future to be sure, but that’s exactly what makes it dependable in mass-opinion situations. (Not all situations are determined by mass-market choices – predicting a presidential election winner is; predicting a superbowl winner is not.)

Playing the game

I had a shot at the Oscar prediction game, joining the alleged 1,680 other “players” who were then online. From what I could tell via the rather gristly Flash interface is that the game is not (yet) “social” in that you can’t see what other people are predicting – there is no access to aggregate opinion. No matter. One can instantly get this in hundreds of prediction market forums right now, for example Intrade, where the price of each outcome in each Academy Awards category directly reflects how strongly players as a whole have bid up that outcome.

At Intrade, at time of writing, Slumdog Millionaire is at $87.30 (max is $100; the other 4 movies share the remaining $12.70). When used as a prediction this means that the aggregate opinion of people staking real money has been effectively captured: it is that Slumdog Millionaire is 87% likely to be the choice of the Academy members in its category.

This is a guide to Oscar night that I would not bet against if I wanted to hold onto my bragging rights. Even in situations less overwhelmingly agreed on by players, it has been shown that prediction markets, tapping the aggregate “wisdom of crowds” (working like “Ask the audience” on Who Wants to be a Millionaire) are a fabulous tool for capturing what most people think will happen, resulting in excellent predictions. Caveat Emptor: prediction markets are poor at predicting long-term, open-ended situations, particularly where the outcome alternatives are unknown or can’t be clearly bounded, as blogged a few months back.

Tweet This Post

It’s an auspicious time for those of us long convinced that design and future studies are fields with significant overlap whose coordination is helpful in addressing both social and commercial problems and/or future opportunities.

Conference: March 19-21

Tim Brown of IDEO, the the industrial design firm, recently published a Harvard Business Review piece Design Thinking – investigating designer-methods in business innovation. At Davos last month there was a “Global Agenda Council/ Design,” featuring Newsweek’s Bruce Nussbaum and built-environment design firm ARUP’s head of foresight, Chris Leubkeman. (The general agenda may be found here.) Next month, the Association of Professional Futurists are having a “Futures by Design”  conference in association with The Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, CA.

And so on. I’m going to be blogging more about this. But for now I wanted to put out a note-to-self I wrote on the issue about five years ago, trying to briefly define how the fields relate to each other, and what the crossover is. Here goes:

The tools of design and planning dovetail closely with those of industry foresight. The overlap and interaction between these two disciplines is not commonly understood, and so the methods and process insights from design professions that could augment the range of strategic foresight tools is often ignored.

1. Beyond aesthetics
Sunday supplements and glossy magazines often use “design” to mean style and fashion. While aesthetics is important, good design means much more than how products appear. It is about creating better processes, interactions and solutions for human benefit. This often involves experimenting with new technologies, envisaging possibilities under conditions of uncertainty and complexity, exploring and comparing alternatives, and determining the best and most durable solution for the long term.

2. Future focus
Whether planning a building, or redesigning a product, or innovating a process, the designer is called on to anticipate a solution that caters to future needs ­ often responding to futures issues, for example environmental-sustainability pressures and changing social values. In other words, design methods, like futures tools in general, form the bridge between current products, systems and practices and what it will be required and desired in the future.

In achieving this future focus, designers, like good “futurists,” must use techniques of imagination, creativity and intuition to generate and evaluate future outcomes. Like futures professionals, designers are called on to practice original thinking, imagine the world differently and see possibilities that others don’t. They are required to take risks, negotiate change and challenge the status quo under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. And like good foresight work, design succeeds only if it finds the right tradeoffs between technology possibilities, economic realities, and social needs.

3. Rendering
More than merely anticipating the future, designers and planners are practical agents of visual imagination, creating the blueprints for the objects and experiences of tomorrow. From product creation to urban renewal, designers and planners have tools and experience translating abstract future concepts and ideals into visible or tangible form ­- “making the invisible visible.” Through this rendering function they are primary agents in articulating the future, and therefore in helping us see and negotiate (or refuse) the transition.

4. Systemic innovation
Design is about systems and practices as much as products: better-designed systems improve utility, cut costs, and improve resource use. Designers play a key role in the organizational innovation process as a whole, including the development of integrated product and services, or inventing new types of value chains, alliances, and collaborations.

In sum, much of what foresight professionals are trying to do every day is already being done by design professions. Their methods and process insights should be integrated into the foresight field as a whole.

Tweet This Post

A fascinating 1981 two-minute KRON news story about home computers and the future of newspapers appeared on BoingBoing a few days ago. The clip is here:

The story covers the pilot project of two San Francisco newspapers seeking to create an online edition. The presenter starts: “Imagine if you will sitting down with your morning coffee and turning to your computer to read the day’s newspaper. Well it’s not as far fetched as it seems…”

28 years later it’s exactly what we do. But it seemed far-fetched then, and this was not a misjudgment: it has taken us until now, the full 28 years in most developed countries, to get to the point where mass online newspapers rival mass print editions in the market. What might that tell us about what seems far-fetched now, whether it will happen or not, and how long it will take? How does it improve our foresight?

$10 plays 20c, but not for long
The news clip features early 1980s computers – the text-only green screens – and achingly slow phone-set modems. A newspaper takes two hours to download (with no picture, ads, or comics). So there are technology limitations.

Then there are economic barriers: the local-call hourly charge is $5 (=$10 for the paper) while the print copy costs 20c.

And there are system-wide market-adoption issues: there are only “two to three thousand” home computers in the Bay Area at the time. Home computer penetration is obviously related to utility (usefulness/cost) of the machine.

But in 1981 home computers were about to get a whole lot better for a whole lot less – and with this programmers would be drawn into turning the technology into something we actually need, and ultimately can’t do without – all driving towards the utility jump that signals mainstream adoption. But at the time home computers were an unimaginably small niche of the total media market.

Fast forward to 2037 and what might we be able to say about it? First, that the pilot projects of important new mainstream markets already exist today (along with great business opportunities). The technologies involved are, now, incredibly clunky and expensive, meaning consumer utility is laughably low. But this will steadily unravel to the point where the technology is fantastic and affordable, and voila! We will have fundamental transition and entirely new mainstream markets.

But the most important lesson of all is this: it will take a generation. The future never cuts corners. All fundamental changes in social and market patterns take at least a generation, if not more. There’s a well-known truism in foresight work, which is this: we tend to overestimate the pace of change, but underestimate how all-encompassing it will be, once it comes.

Tweet This Post