The logistics firm DHL (Deutsche Post) has just completed and publicized five future scenarios called “Delivering Tomorrow: Logistics 2050.”

In the never-ending mountain of corporate waffle, surely this is the summit? Why spend time and resources on thinking about what might happen 38 years from now when even the 5-year-future is effectively unpredictable?

In an exclusive interview with Forbes, Senior VP for Communications Strategy at Deutsche Post in Germany, and management executive directly responsible for the project, Dr. Jan Müller, said the 2050 scenarios started as “a pure play in communications strategy. It was a thought leadership exercise. We put the scenarios out there to energize the societal debate.”

In other words, this is DHL’s “heads-up” to the big issues driving world change over the next few decades, and its reference document for steering the future away from two bogeys: (1) national trade protectionism and (2) indiscriminate resource use and resulting climate change.

Said Müller: “DHL is well advised to constantly insist on the benefits and relevance of liberal world trade.”

So far, so normal, in using ultra-long term alternative visions of the future to urge the world to become a better place, including for the company concerned, while polishing the public image of the firm and providing something new to show at Davos.

Second Life

What’s particularly interesting about this project, and more-or-less unique in the field of industry foresight, is the scenarios will have what Müller calls a “second life” inside the firm. In something of a tour-de-force in scenario construction, the scenarios appear ingeniously formed to span both their external corporate “save-the-world” function and an internal strategy-formation role.

According to Muller, colleagues in Deutche Post corporate strategy have become active with the scenarios, and the Deutsche Post Management Board recently spent a day analyzing the project’s implications.

The work “has ramifications that reach deeply into the strategic and entrepreneurial thinking of the company,” said Müller.

All the way to 2050? Well, no. “There is a follow-up project trying to calculate development perspectives that are closer than 2050, and derive more concrete options from that exercise,” said Müller.

This version will obviously not be for public consumption.

But even as it stands, the project as applied to internal executive decision making is a challenge to the linear planning culture at Deutsche Post. Presenting the work in-company over the past weeks, Müller has argued to colleagues across the firm that “in the current age of volatility, it is not useful to apply linear prognosis. We have to think in alternatives.”

This was also the tenor of CEO of Deutsche Post DHL Frank Appel’s opening address at project launch in Berlin last month. In an increasingly complex world filled with uncertainties, short-range projections would no longer be of much help in setting the appropriate long-term direction and devising robust strategies, said Appel.

The Deutsche Post DHL 2050 scenarios are:

1. Untamed Economy: untamed growth and unchecked materialism cause a mounting number of natural disasters, putting the world on the brink of a collapse.

2. Mega-efficient Cities: cities emerge as the world’s power centers, with radically altered consumer needs, while an urban low-wage class is entrenched and rural areas stagnate.

3. Customized Lifestyles: individualization and customization shapes people’s everyday lives, requiring decentralized and regional production structures.

4. Paralyzing Protectionism: the world is hobbled by economic hardship, excessive nationalism and trade protectionism.

5. Global Resilience: resilient production and logistics structures gain a higher priority than continued efficiency maximization, after repeated natural disasters and supply chain failures earlier in the century.

Fired – Villas-Boas. Picture: uefa.com

The leadership brouhaha of the week was the sacking of Chelsea Football manager André Villas-Boas after only 8 months in charge. This means the London soccer club is looking for its eighth manager since Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich bought it in 2003.

When not firing managers, Abramovich is famous for, among other things, spending $52,215.34 on a lunch for 6 in at Nello’s in Manhattan.

Villas-Boas’ error, like those fired before him (bar one who quit) is he didn’t win enough fast enough. In his charge the team won three of their last 12 Premier League games, and face exit to SSC Napoli after loosing the first leg of their UEFA Champions League round-of-16 tie.

Villas-Boas’ remuneration for the year, including severance, is around the $20m mark.

In industry foresight, noticing extremes helps us see and interpret less visible changes in the world. Stellar pay and commensurately rapid churn at the top of Chelsea FC clues us in to what is going on in the daily mainstream that we may be too immersed in to register.

High pay is nothing new. Also, evidence of high CEO churn is on the radar. A 2006 University of  Chicago study showed CEO turnover was 17.4% per year 1998-2005, implying average tenure of less than six years. It related CEO longevity to three components of stock performance – performance relative to industry, industry performance relative to the overall market, and the performance of the overall stock market.

More recently, executive search firm Crist|Kolder studied Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies and found that while average CEO churn dipped during the recession it was back on the way up, hitting 13% in 2011.

“Win Now”

What is less clear at this point is the correlation between higher pay levels and higher churn, that may play out more fully in the future. But if the trend is that CEOs are increasingly paid like sports (or sports management) stars — and they are — it’s reasonable to anticipate that this will be on an ever-increasingly short-fuse “win-now” basis.

If the analogy holds, we can expect chief executives to face shorter and shorter periods to justify their pay; probably the higher the remuneration the shorter the justification period. Where eye-watering sums are changing hands, fingers will be itchy on the trigger.

The poverty of management decision-making here is not just in embracing and fostering short-termism, the cancer of management. It is in prejudging and potentially wasting leadership talent, because short-term data is effectively no data. Put it another way, short-term wins or losses are at the mercy of randomness, such that what looks like good or bad results are almost always part of normal near-term fluctuation spread, as argued by Nassim Taleb in his book “Fooled By Randomness.”

Over the long term, twists of fate, or twists of ankles are ironed out, and quality prevails. Nobody would argue that Steve Jobs was not successful or not worthy of star pay. But Villas-Boas … won championships for Porto FC in 2010 and lost championships for Chelsea FC in 2011, and neither results tell us or Abramovich whether he’s any good or not.

The only thing we can expect with confidence is that where the sports-star model of remuneration migrates, Boards (or shareholders) will be eager to read too much into early data, and prone to make Abramovich-like decisions.

Bears are in a surprise squeeze. Not so long ago it was rebound-optimist Jon Corzine of MF Global publicly taking the hit that many others were privately taking too.

It’s certainly not news that markets don’t behave as expected, nor that emotion drives decisions, but Joan Foltz, author of  Market Whipped: And Not By Choice (Alsek, 2012) suggests something further: that we are going through a basic shift in how markets work and therefore how to succeed in them.

She says the financial markets have become a MMORPG, that is, a “massive multiplayer online role-playing game.” In gamer world, a MMORPG is a vast virtual world where an effectively unlimited number of players assume characters and interact with each other in a persistent and ever-evolving “reality.”

The same computation and virtualization platform technologies that have produced game worlds also underpin financial markets, and are therefore unsurprisingly producing similar effects.

Buy a stock and you have entered a virtual arena of realms and battles, with characters taking roles in stories that play out over a known (to insiders) time period. There are masters and magicians and druids and emporers, and who knows what else, all gaming for your money. Play the game right, and you win theirs.

Says Foltz: “Keep the market in mind as you go through this list of features:

• a massive base of online players who create a dynamic environment that requires extremely complex strategies and sharp analytical skills.
• an extensive systems architecture with multiple regions and restricted levels of access, all of which are usually controlled by a Game Master.
• an online location that blurs the real and virtual worlds, where human and computerized players interact with real money that transfers into virtual currencies.
• automated programs (bots) that create situations to trig­ger reactions from other players.
• players who are classified by attributes, powers, and capabilities, which limit their territories.
• players who can take on multiple characters, each with a unique mission.
• social interaction that immerses players in role-playing opportunities.”

Who are the characters in the game? High-frequency traders, hedge funds, corporations, pension funds, celebrity investors, the media, the government, to name just the obvious ones.

Into this world walk investors who think the markets are what they used to be, and work how they used to work – that they are understandable through due-diligence in research, and winnable by well-considered valuations or by technical analysis. No surprise that they find themselves surprised. In gamer world, nothing is as it appears and nothing works out as expected.

Game on

Foltz’s argument is that traders of all stripes improve their results by acknowledging market MMORPG and thinking like a gamer. That is, seeking to understand where the battle is at any time; recognizing who battles whom, under what conditions, and for how long; knowing who the strongmen are in their realm and what story is playing out.

Investors should know their own token in the game, its attributes and ammunition, as well as its limitations. This will improve judgment of where to be, when to come and go (market timing), and encourage quick exits from realms that are best left to more powerful, and perhaps, darker forces.

The book itself has a chaotic, breathless, aspect, and is marred by a tendency to conspiracy theory. But it does provide a productive analogy that sheds light on unchartered territory. In other words, it does what “futurists” should do when they do their job right: identify and illuminate a change in the world, and describe why assumptions and practices that worked in the past may fail going forward.

The World Bank on May 18 released a report “Multipolarity: The New Global Economy” with outlook for the geo-financial system to 2025.

“Multipolarity” catches the World Bank up with what has been clear for a long time: an actually, genuinely different global economic order is unfolding as growth moves to emerging economies, with countries such as China, India, South Korea, Russia, and Brazil accounting for the majority of economic growth in the next decade and beyond. And, on the back of this, the dollar will lose its pre-eminence as global reserve currency.

The report is nevertheless important at a meta-level. When the World Bank puts out a perspective, that means the perspective becomes more-or-less institutionalized wisdom. Global financial revolution, effectively, is no longer a theory out there. It is the “official future,” and financial and political institutions are more likely to act in line with it. Therein a reinforcing feedback loop.

Renminbi

A couple of things stand out. Report author Mansoor Dailami says the euro and renminbi will establish themselves on an equal footing to the dollar. This seems plausible, but one is left wondering – given the pace of innovation in finance, and in computing, and in communications and networking, and the 14 years to 2025 – will we still be looking at a system where national or regional currencies are  “dominant?” Could the world financial system not evolve differently, for example away from a global reserve requirement altogether, or towards more multi-currency baskets? (The report does entertain the adoption of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights system.)

The foresight principle: In looking at the future it’s tempting to see new agents dominating current structures, but often the structures themselves change.

The other point that pops out is an expectation that cross-border M&A deals originating in emerging markets will be an increasing feature of the new corporate landscape.

This is as solid a prediction as one will find. But it surely will not be one way. While cash-flush emerging-market companies will look to diversify into European and American companies, or take them over entirely – particularly ones that have Asian brand recognition and prestige (remember the Japanese corporate shopping trips of 1980s) – developed-world companies will be returning the favor, buying their way into emerging market companies to get a piece of their growth.

And we’re not talking passive investment here. The action will be immersive developed-meets-emerging market M&A (and surely also corporate raiding, hostile takeovers, etc.)

M&A is “speed” for corporate leaders. A big high, often followed by acrash. But if history is any guide, the lure of buying someone else’s growth, not to mention instantly enhancing a company’s industry size-power footprint, is more intoxicating than the sirens of Odysseus, so one can confidently predict it going forward.

Which is to say the spreadsheet-anticipated wins in economies of scale, scope, market synergies, or vertical integration of M&A will be up against the problems of marrying company cultures, systems, products, brand values and business models — a vexing problem that routinely defeats even the best business leaders.

But add to this, here, very significant cross-cultural management and staff issues, problems of distance, and regulatory systems that are often purposed to different ends, and you have a leadership challenge indeed for firms that venture down this path. But venture they must, because companies in low-growth markets can only buy back their shares for so long (aka “we’ve got no ideas about what to do with investor money, so we’re giving it back to you”) — witness GE’s $12bn share buy-back announcement this week.

Fukushima plant, Japan. Picture: digitalglobe.com

At the time of writing, Japan is battling a nuclear meltdown and radiation emergency, and Fukushima could become a word suddenly the whole world knows, like Chernobyl.

Bloomberg News has called the whole tsunami crisis Naoto Kan’s “Katrina moment,” and one can only hope and pray for all concerned that the Japanese prime minister is a more competent leader than Bush was at this moment of human catastrophe.

As to the nuclear meltdown: If ever we have been warned about anything in the future, we have been warned about nuclear plant catastrophes. Not only have there been, as it were, verbal warnings going all the way back to the 1950s, but real-world events such as Three-Mile-Island and Chernobyl have fully fleshed out the scenario of nuclear reactor failure or near failure in populated areas.

If nuclear-generated electricity makes sense anywhere, it makes sense in Japan, which famously has no coal or gas reserves. But these are nuclear plants … built right on the Pacific Ring of Fire? Japan is a small island with 125 million people densely packed into urban areas. As we face the possibility of this many people put at risk, however the next few days play out it’s clear the risk and reward of nuclear energy here is out of alignment.

This is hardly news. The question is, why are the plants are there? And the answer is not a simple one of collusion or corruption of government, or shenanigans of power companies, although there may be some of that. It comes down to a misapprehension of probability and risk among leaders and decision-makers such that it appears that risk and reward are in balance, when in fact they are not.

Year 869AD

To think about this, consider yesterday’s BBC Story: Japan tsunami ‘could be 1,000-year event,” saying last week’s tidal wave was equivalent to a giant wave that hit the Sendai coast in 869AD. The report says: ”It is not unusual for undersea earthquakes to generate tsunamis in this part of Japan. Offshore quakes in the 19th and 20th centuries also caused large walls of water to hit this area of coastline. But previous research by a Japanese team shows that (only) in the 869 ‘Jogan’ disaster, tsunami waters moved some 4km inland, causing widespread flooding.”

The point is, tsunamis are common, but “the big one” is a one-in-thousand year event — an extremely low probability outcome.

Here I’m strongly reminded of the days following the depth of the Credit Crunch, Bear Stearns’ collapse, and general world financial system meltdown of 2008. If bankers said one thing sensible through the whole period it was: “this was a one-in-ten-(hundred, etc.)-thousand probability outcome, and extreme ‘outlier’ event!”

A low-probability event means we can relax, right? Wrong. The problem is probability says zilch about impact. “Wild Cards,” or now more famously in Nassim Taleb’s terms, “Black Swan” events are low probability but of game-changing impact.

Taleb’s point, made repeatedly across his various books and articles, is that standard probability theory and Gaussian statistics lull analysts into thinking that because an event is low probability – an outlier in a normal bell-curve distribution – it is of low or lower consequence.

Ignoring the tail of the Bell Curve is okay if events are genuinely assessed as low impact. If they are high-impact aka “fat-tailed” events, they are the most important events we face in the future, in building or maintaining any system or organization.

A probabilistic framework misleads decision-makers because it degrades their attention to crucial events (by tagging them low-probability,) which means next thing they are betting banks on mortgage-backed securities, or building nuclear plants on earthquake fault lines.

In the pivotal moment of the movie “Remains of the Day,” US Congressman Trent Lewis (Christopher Reeve) in England in 1936 declares to the “gentleman-amateurs” around him who are blunderingly cosy-ing up to the Nazis: “leave politics to the professionals.”

It’s an expression of the 20th century zeitgeist shift to professionalization of not only politics, but all significant decision-making and management. Business certainly led the way through the century with the rapid rise of managers as a distinct class of professional, expecting the commensurate erosion of family-run firms of any real size and clout.

The problem with family firms are legion: under-qualified if not downright incompetent heirs thrust into positions they can’t cope with or don’t want, family wrangles, inheritance disputes, relative non-accountability of management leading to quixotic decision-making, secrecy mitigating against access to capital and therefore growth, and so on.

So the wisdom became that the family-firm management was appropriate in start-up mode, and then as companies scaled up and moved to external funding and responsibility to multiple stakeholders, professional management should take over for the good of everyone.

Generations

Or so we thought. There is a long-running counter-argument that family firms do many things better, even at scale. Key decisions are made with the fearless straight-talk that is often required, and without bureaucracy up and down the chain. Families may have their politics, but they don’t have the chronic office politics nor resume-polishing that besets so much of corporate life, wasting countless person-hours.

Furthermore, industry and business wisdom that is built up over generations stays in the firm rather than getting washed down the river every time the executive door revolves. The bottom line: family firms remain a more-than-viable model very much alive and kicking all across the world.

These are background issues to Randel Carlock (INSEAD) and John Ward’s (Kellogg) new book “When Family Businesses are Best,” (Palgrave, 2010) which is broadly about navigating a family firm in the changing, globalizing world.

What got my attention particularly is the authors’ contention that family firms are better at developing, retaining, and working to a long-term management perspective. That is, the family is an inherently long-term institution, and well-run family enterprises are run in such a way as to endure for the future for the family – and this is an advantage in navigating and surviving a changing world.

The term the authors’ use is for this kind of management is “stewardship.”

The root problem of most professionally managed businesses is they are run without stewardship  – without concern for long-term well-being of the firm or its stakeholders. If we needed reminding, the banking crisis was the product of management that couldn’t be further from stewardship – taking absurd risks with other people’s money for short-term personal wins.

Banks have become the poster child for the follies of short-termism, but the reality is short-termism remains endemic across professional management, both in business and politics. Long after “après moi le déluge” CEOs have taken their packages and are on the golf course, others – employees, taxpayers, the environment, etc. – are paying the price.

What’s measured

At least, post-crunch, it is now incontrovertible that short-termism is an extremely poor strategy for managing a complex and uncertain future. “What gets measured gets managed,” and when what is measured is only the next quarter’s profit figures, bigger failure looms.

The family-run businesses offers a model of long-term management. It is a conservative non- “bet-the farm” model to be sure, but perhaps the path a real steward of value genuinely operating in the best interest of valued stakeholders would follow.

So how might one, without the real flesh-and-blood bond of family ties, get senior executives to think through the effect of their behavior on employees or stakeholders 10- or 20 years in the future, as the head of a family would? Surely only by creating incentive structures that mimic family stewardship – incentives that mean that leaders can’t walk away smiling until the organization (or the value it represents) has been safely passed on to the next generation.

Leadership is most commonly associated with motivating staff and streamlining organizational effectiveness. While this is core, leadership implies far more. It implies foresight and vision. Leaders are not just those who are responsible for an organization’s “best manifestation today.” Whether they like it or not, they also carry the burden of responsibility for their organization’s best manifestation tomorrow.

And tomorrow, as we know, will be different in important and sometimes surprising ways.

So any leader of note is soon asked to go beyond “effective managing,” to look out at the uncertain road ahead and steer to the desired destination on behalf of followers and stakeholders. Leaders take their institutions to the future.

Therefore, as enterprises are forced to transform in response to rapid social, technological and market change, so anticipating and competitively interpreting new opportunities and setting appropriate direction under conditions of complexity and uncertainty has become a key competitive skill — perhaps the key skill — leaders bring to their position.

There are, these days, more high-quality non-predictive approaches to strategic foresight and future-management than most managers are aware of. So this is what I get to go over with an impressive array of real-world Scottish managers in workshop mode in Edinburgh over the weekend.

But will leadership itself change?

In leading the future, there is also a meta-question: will leadership itself change? Does this skill have “a future?” Will leading mean the same thing in the next generation as it has meant in the past? Or are there new skills leaders will need to acquire for the new era of business and society?

In a recent Forrester hub blog piece “Thoughts on Leadership in the Social Era,” authors Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler bring insight from their book Empowered, and Charlene Li’s book Open Leadership in asserting what it means to lead “in a social world.” They offer this 5-point checklist:

1. Share strategy continuously, especially changes in strategy
2. Embrace half-baked ideas
3. Use councils to coordinate
4. Celebrate failure
5. Celebrate success (Full text here.)

Would he require a skills upgrade? Image via Wikipedia

To be honest, this looks a lot like the flattening and opening-up “leadership revolution” of the dot-com boom and the post-recession 90s, which leads me to think, is leadership (including the foresight injunction) perhaps a constant rather than a changing skillset? Would any leader in history, from Jefferson to Jesus, not be able to lead in today’s environment? Would George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Earnest Shackleton, Mahatma Ghandi, Golda Meir, Nelson Mandela, et al would be able to lead in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century, or would they they require some kind of “skills upgrade” to be fit for the world of social media, empowered consumers, and so on?

I’m very tempted to say they would do fine. Hyper-information and social networking is just another set of challenges drawing on an age-hold leadership skill set, which includes knowing how to effectively communicate and persuade and inspire, no matter what the media conditions.

But I’m indebted to my friend and foresight-sounding-board-extraordinaire, Andrew Curry, for offering this perspective:

“I think there must be *some* changes in the demands on leadership as a result of:

- rapid feminization of the workforce
- secular shift in attitudes to authority/ trust
- emergence of ideas about complexity.”

While I was there I couldn’t help noticing the business print and radio waves being dominated by the potential entrance of Wal-Mart, with all the jitters of local businesses considering the knock-ons and side-effects of the “über cost competitor” turning up at the end of the street.

If it goes ahead, Wal-Mart will enter via acquisition of local retailer Massmart which is, as the name suggests, a copy-cat company anyway, so it would seem all there is to talk about is price. As things stand, Wal-Mart is in its fifth week of due diligence on Massmart, currently visiting all 288 stores under acquisition, according to a recent WSJ report.

Now Wal-Mart is not busting a gut for the SA market, population 45 million, of course. The whole project is about using the South African operation as gateway into Africa as a whole. It is bet on the 5-to-10-year-and-beyond future of sub-Saharan Africa.

Massmart Chief Executive Grant Pattison is quoted as saying “you have to take the long view on Africa,” and this is exactly what Wal-Mart is doing. Enacting a long forward play for the newly strengthening African retail market.

Other than inventing the scale-based supply-chain-squeeze model of retail, which must go down as one of the great business innovations of all time, Wal-Mart is hardly known as a foresight-based player. As forward looking as the Massmart acquisition is, Wal-Mart has in fact been well beaten to the African punch by the Chinese who have been investing across the continent over the past decade (although the Chinese investment has been predominantly in infrastructure and resources, while Wal-Mart’s would be in anticipation of lower-middle class consumer enrichment on the back of that.)

The glass half full
The Chinese invasion is by far the biggest thing to happen in African economies since European colonialism, not only due to widespread infrastructural investment, and not only because it comes without “Washington Consensus” strings attached, but, even more fundamentally, because it is driving a zeitgest shift in business confidence. Deep problems remain, but suddenly the glass that was half empty appears half full, particularly to occidentals.

One expression of the new half-full perspective is McKinsey’s breathless report (June 2010) on Africa’s economic emergence, entitled “Lions on the Move,” which starts: “Africa’s collective economy grew very little during the last two decades of the 20th century. But sometime in the late 1990s, the continent began to stir. GDP growth picked up and bounded ahead…”

Asian Tigers. African Lions. Geddit? But when both Wal-Mart and McKinsey are setting their watches to the near-term future African economic growth story, you can bet other companies are set to pounce too.

Truth be told, the foresight field is littered with predictions about the future of the automobile, from the futurists’ flying car that never happened to the-pumps-run-dry doomsday, and everything inbetween.

The Xiao EN-V concept car. Photograph © General Motors / Wieck Media Services Inc

But, judging by the interview, Burns has a higher-quality foresight view of this industry than most, and this because he prioritizes what consumers really value as a guide to what will emerge over any policy principle or ideological interest.

What do consumers really value? “There’s nothing like the freedom they (cars) provide to let us go where we want, when we want, with the people we want to travel with,” says Burns.

“Ever since people could walk, the ability to move when they want and where they want is something people have found very compelling.”

Nothing new, but what he is warding off, in preparing the ground to looking to the industry future, is views of the automotive future that are ideologically colored, particularly those imbued with the virtues of public transport.

Says Burns, “Three major impediments get in the way of public transportation:

• The first is routes. A public transportation system can’t go everywhere, so people have to have a way to get to and from the stations.
• The second is schedules. You can’t leave exactly when you want to, so you have to arrive before the public transit system arrives to pick you up, which has major impacts on how people schedule their lives. And unfortunately, those schedules aren’t always predictable, so you have to buffer.
• The third is that since people have to shift modes from how they get to the station — whether it’s in cars, on scooters, or on bicycles — to the public transport mode, you create a need for parking.”

This balance could change — this is what public transport executives seek to effect. But until there is clear reason to see public-transport pain-points diminishing, there’s no reason to see anything but private-dominated transport in the future (other than very dense urban environments such as Manhattan.)

Pain avoidance

Burns places automotive foresight at the intellectual crossroads between what the majority of consumers really want (or what pain they want to avoid) and what pundits and ideologues think would be a better solution. Guess which always wins?

With that issue solved, the question then turns to what these private vehicles are exactly? Here Burns and co-authors have a vision, but it is more “anybody’s guess.” Their fundamental assumptions is that onboard inter-vehicle accident-avoidance technology is watertight, which means cars don’t need all their defensive armour and can so be far lighter, and therefore use less energy, so battery power and life is no longer the limiting issue it is today. See the concept-car above.

This blog first posted at Forbes Leadership: http://blogs.forbes.com/adamgordon

.

But, making one of the classic mistakes of technology-driven futures thinking, Clarke lets his technological imagination blur basic insight into human nature and social service/product adoption. Specifically, he goes on to say that because of communications technology advances, “the city of 2000 may not even exist at all. The traditional role of the city as meeting place for a man will cease to make any sense.”
.

.
Note the gender paradigm blinkers. But anyway – the end of cities? Fat chance. One of the defining issues of the early 21st century is urban growth and the emergence of  10+ million-population mega-cities. And across the world, a higher proportion of the human population live in cities than at any point in history (and that proportion has just crossed 50% making humans for the first time a primarily urban species.) Hello? Arthur?

Urban concentrations 2007. Source: The Guardian

Why the miscue? First Clarke makes the classic error of holding key variables still while running technology forward. The key variable here is population growth. The number of people on the planet has doubled, at least, since 1964.

But that population could all be comfortably telecommuting from rural idylls, so there is another problem. Clarke fails to factor in social and economic pressures which sometimes run counter to technology advancement or, as in this case, merely absorb technology shift with no change. No matter how good communications get, nothing in the information-communications revolution has changed the age-old social truth that proximity matters. It matters to community welfare. It matters to social opportunities. It matters to  career advancement, and so on. It mattered in the past. It will matter in the future. That’s why people are in jam-packed into into Los Angeles and São Paulo and Johannesburg and Seoul, etc., but not Tahiti.
.

In its own words: “Global Voices is a community of more than 300 bloggers and translators around the world who work together to bring you reports from blogs and citizen media everywhere, with emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media. Global Voices seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We work to develop tools, institutions and relationships that will help all voices, everywhere, to be heard.”

There are of course other places to get local-blog perspectives on current issues and concerns, but this site appears to be the broadest and best, at least at the moment.

.
Why is this important for thinking adequately about the future?

The biggest problem we have in foresight work is the double-whammy that (a) people, on aggregate, choose and make the future, and (b) we don’t know what they will choose because we don’t adequately listen to their concerns and motivations, or worse, are we are deaf to their motivations because they are outside of our frame of reference.

(a) Yes, the future is influenced by new capabilities, driven by new technologies, but technologies come out of societal perspectives (what are we going to invest in or research towards?) and then adoption (which technologies “make it”) is all about social and economic choices. So what defines the future is what most people want. (Not everyone wants the same thing: that’s what politics is about.)

(b) Share of voice is political too, and in our world some people and companies have vast sway over media channels, but most have no voice. But just because they have no voice doesn’t mean they are not making choices as to (a) above. All it means is that if you’re not listening, the future will surprise you.

A “surprise future” = a lack of mental preparation. Without exception.

It is easier both practically and ideologically to listen to ourselves and our micro-communities of associates online or off, which confirms what we think and how we think. It’s much tougher to absorb alternative perspectives. Global Voices is not perfect. It is still, naturally, the preserve of the literate and educated. But it is a first step out of the frame.

.

As Stoyko’s is head-and-shoulders the most insightful and thorough assessments of the book itself, and the book in context, I’m reposting it here, with thanks. There are also fabulous graphics added, such as these (see more below):

“My search led to Adam Gordon’s Future Savvy. Like Posner, Gordon challenges Taleb’s blanket dismissal of forecasting. Gordon does not deny the existence of Black Swan events. And his book is a giant compendium of all of the things that usually go wrong with predictions. Moreover, Gordon offers a sceptical discussion of the subject that chastises simple-minded futurists, tech enthusiasts, and various other prophets of doom and boom. The difference between Taleb and Gordon is that Gordon doesn’t dismiss out-of-hand the usefulness of structured thinking about the future. Many important decisions require us to speculate about what the future might hold. Gordon wants us to be savvy in the way we anticipate the future instead of flying by the seats of our pants, so to speak.

“To set the stage, Gordon talks about how the forecasting industry is rife with problems. There are no standards, no accepted methods, no standard terminology. There are no penalties for failure given that people tend to forget forecasts by the time they can be proven wrong. And when dealing with the forecasts offered by pundits, stakeholders, and activists, Gordon reminds us, “we are knee deep in predictive wishful thinking, scare-mongering, or blatant self-promotion.” (p. 5) Buyer beware.

“Then there are the data problems. Forecasters use data from the past to project trends into the future. They rely heavily on data gathered for other purposes, not gathered for the task at hand. Availability is patchy. The data comes from multiple sources and is created using different methods. Important statistical caveats get lost. The context of the original studies gets forgotten. Variables are often defined loosely … and change over time … and are measured differently in different places. Data gathering methods often change over time in ways that exaggerate or obscure a trend. Sensationalist “newsy” data often commands the most attention. Some things are inherently difficult or impossible to measure accurately. All sorts of assumptions get embedded in data projected into the future. Furthermore, Gordon talks about the ways in which numbers can be finessed in an underhanded way. He advocates “number scepticism”, warning: “But no matter how scientific the data appears, choices have been exercised at every point about what to observe, what to count, how to measure it, and how to report it. … But numbers are not bedrock. There is no bedrock.” (p. 59)

“As an aside, statisticians have a snide nickname for analysts who mix’n’match statistics from a hodgepodge of sources to create complicated models or story-lines. That nickname is junk-yard dog. Gordon gives the impression that the forecasting business is, by necessity, heavily populated with these collectors.

“The sources of potential error don’t end with data. Our biases cause us to misinterpret and misreport the data.

“Some bias is intentional manipulation. Rascally analysts ignore or downplay countervailing evidence. They give evidence less scrutiny if it confirms the desired result. Emotionally charged language and associations are used. Terms are defined in leading ways. Extreme cases are used to represent the norm. Forecasts that don’t accord with an agenda get ignored, especially if the forecast is sponsored by a powerful interest. Organisational incentives can cause those being scrutinised to fudge the numbers. When forecasts are presented to the media, the most extreme trends get attention and important caveats remain unreported. Gordon is particularly critical of the so-called futurists who use “stretch thinking” and “big-picture thinking” to imagine a world full of only big changes. Many have a technophile bias, or the assumption that technology is the sole motive-force of large-scale societal change. Gordon’s advice is to keep your guard up and be wary of motives.

“Setting aside the thinness of this advice, Gordon has a strange attitude when talking about manipulation. He makes a distinction between forecasts that attempt to be accurate and forecasts that attempt to influence. Employee-prodding managers, partisan policy wonks, and alarmist activists use loaded forecasts to move minds. Humility, qualification, and tentativeness don’t have a place in these circles. There may be a legitimate reason for using leading forecasts, such as communicating the art-of-the-possible or giving someone an ambitious target to strive for. However, leading forecasts without full disclosure are instruments of underhanded manipulation. Gordon is eerily agnostic. His advice and tone of voice suggests that he is oblivious to the ethical problems posed by the manipulative use of forecasts. It’s a strange contrast with Gordon’s advice about being careful and pragmatically sceptical. [Editor's note: Agnostic? Moi? Hardly, but perhaps the chill of my irony was not chilly enough.]

“Back to the sources of error.

“Gordon itemises a number of cognitive biases that are inherent to the way we think. We often miss Black Swan events and abrupt changes in prevailing wisdom (“paradigm shifts”), he argues, because we are always filtering information based on perceived relevance. This “inattentional blindness” causes us to not notice important influences on the future. We also overemphasize recent happenings over older events (the recency effect). We’re susceptible to herd thinking and faddish ideas. A few chance events are often mistakenly interpreted as a trend or other pattern. Gordon places particular emphasis on how our current context frames the way we see and think (situational bias), especially how the prevailing mindset and preoccupations of an era skew the way we think about the future (Zeitgeist bias). For example, nuclear-powered airplanes may have seemed inevitable to someone living in the 1950s, a time preoccupied with thoughts of nuclear technology, suggests Gordon. That notion seems absurd today. To counter this problem, he argues for the need to extract the assumptions underpinning our expectations. Those assumptions need to be questioned and tested. And one good test is to reverse the assumption; that is, consider how the future would be different if the opposite (or very different) assumption were used.

I would add that people habitually rely on lazy assumptions about the future in general. As Howard Segal points out in his book Technological Utopianism in American Culture (2005), late-19th and early-20th-Century intellectuals assumed a technological plateau when describing the future. Even today, we assume our arrival at some destination—a future steady state—instead of a world of on-going change that is unevenly distributed and erratically paced, as exists now.

Gordon invites us to consider the utility people derive from a particular technology before jumping to conclusions about how it will revolutionise everyone’s lives. Tech-happy futurists are too quick to assume broad public acceptance of a new technology while ignoring the trade-offs of adoption. There are costs to be considered. In many cases, the price is too high and existing technologies do a good enough job. Or old technologies have an inertia, such as when users are “locked in” to a particular technology. Or social values change. Or switching creates undue inconvenience and aggravation. Or the technology has uneven appeal across diverse groups in society. Or, or … Gordon reminds us that simple technological domino effects almost never happen. The pace of change is usually slower than anticipated. A variety of factors determine how successful an innovation will be.

That leads us to the dynamics of change. I’m not going to describe each dynamic in detail. Gordon devotes a lot of space to them. Instead, I’ve listed them iconographically in the following diagram. Note that the darker lines signify consequences (and consequences of consequences; a.k.a. second-order and third-order events).

“A trend observed today may not continue onward along a straight-forward path. Trends peter out … change course … hit limits … get caught in reinforcing loops … have side-effects … provoke reactions … et cetera. The same goes for underlying causes. Trends can be particularly difficult to track within the complex systems that govern our lives. Thus, Gordon offers a chapter on system analysis.

“As someone who studies organisations, I’m often seeing policies and strategies change with sadly predictable pendulum swings. Gung-ho leaders push in one direction with gusto only to get a lesson in humility. Their efforts hit limits and opposition. Their assumptions hit reality. Subsequent leaders see wreckage everywhere and push in the opposite direction, looking for balance. Balance alludes them and they go to far. Another pendulum swing begins. Some swings happen from season to season. Others happen over decades. These swings may be predictable, but their exact timing certainly isn’t.

“Gordon rounds out Future Savvy with a utilitarian survival-guide of sorts. His big advice is that “it’s better to be vaguely right than exactly wrong.” Success is being alert to important changes and being prepared to cope, not with having accurate predictions. Narrowing down the things that need to be prepared for is an important practical benefit. In that spirit, Gordon talks about the strengths and weaknesses of using multiple scenarios instead of pat forecasts. He steps the reader through the analysis of some forecasts while looking for weaknesses. A chapter-long battery of questions is offered to guide the analysis. These questions do a good job of summarising the book.

“All told, Future Savvy is an excellent textbook for those who want to discipline the way they think about the future. I disagree with Gordon’s tangents about the inherently subjective nature of truth. I also have a few qualms about his take on scepticism. But these tangents rarely get in the way of his stock-taking exercise. That exercise has led me to be even more suspicious of forecasting, especially forecasts in volatile industries where data is patchy and assumptions are legion. I’d love to know the success rate of high-tech cheer-leaders … er, research firms that peddle forecasting numbers. Gordon dismisses the tracking of forecast failures as “smirk lists”. I’m with Taleb and his tsk tsking. If these numbers are just part of the hype machine and have a dismal track-record, then what good are they? Validation for reckless investment strategies? Fodder for misleading Power­Point slides? Numbers that give a false sense of being in-touch with the market? Tsk tsk.

“That said, Future Savvy has increased my interest in foresight more generally. Gordon’s guide left me wondering how I can better prepare groups of decision-makers to think about the future. How do we get them to see the many changes afoot with greater foresight?”

The harder task in achieving quality foresight is to judge across such lists what is really going to change the world and therefore the operating environment for most firms, and what is just, well, merely of passing interest. The true test is to get trend impact right, not merely to call the trend.

There is no exact science to this of course. But a good heuristic is to judge the strength of the trend (drivers for vs. blockers against) x change to status quo (how new is this really?) x number of people affected. In this regard, a recent FT article reports on a genuinely world-changing trend.

The story is about how Indian television stations, led by Murcdoch’s Star India and Viacom are writing more independent, assertive roles for women in soap operas to reflect new realities in the Indian middle class. They hope to renew viewer ratings, as this clip explains:

New womens’ roles and aspirations have permeated Western society in the past generation and a half, and have profoundly changed everything from dress to daycare. Now the other 5 billion are going there too.

I would not (I stress) expect the Western model to be followed to the letter. Cultures always interpret world trends and technologies their own way. But billions of girls are growing up to be unlike their mothers in key respects, and will demand industries  — not just the media — move with them, and will reward those that do with unprecedented commercial opportunities. That’s a certain future.

But, it is the eve of the soccer World Cup so in the interest of providing more couch potato time for myself, I table the longer discussion in favor of this taster, which shows the FIFA business model canvas. The point of the canvas is it provides a “sandbox” for thinking how elements could be rearranged, taken away, or new ones added, to renew the business model for the future.

Of course, renewing a business model begs the question does it need renewing? Which is the question that bedevils all scenario and futures thinking. For some the status quo works perfectly! Did you know that FIFA demands that Sepp Blatter is hosted by South Africa at the protocol status of a visiting Head of State? Hmmm.

Imagine driving down a country road when a street dog starts chasing your car. The dog attacks the car, but by the time it gets close, the car has moved ahead, so the dog changes direction and attacks the new coordinates. This goes on as the dog adapts, but it never quite catches up, and once it is following behind it is obviously too slow to catch up. Had it thought ahead and run straight it would have had its day with the tires.

The resulting curve looks something like this:

.
In mathematics, this is known as the ‘curve of pursuit. The dog is attacking the problem as it sees it right now, but by the time it reaches it, the problem has moved on a few steps. A ‘problem-solving’ approach like this is going to prolong the time it takes to get to key decisions, and give the initiative to competitors. The better approach in managing moving situations — and all situations are moving — is to anticipate and tackle tomorrow’s position today.

Obviously the devil is in the quality of the anticipation, but for that there is Future Savvy and other key resources that exist for determining quality in foresight work. Industry foresight can never be done perfectly, but it can be done well enough to avoid the “dog chase” future-management style that characterizes much of industry leadership.

In 1995, at the height of Microsoft’s power over the economy and the zeitgeist (before Google came into its own, before Apple renewed, etc.) Bill Gates wrote “The Road Ahead,” which was, as one would expect, a broadly techno-optimistic look at the future. Did it see 9/11? No. Iraq War 2? No. The Credit Crunch? No. For a start it only really thinks about digital technology, and that’s going to be a very partial guide to the road ahead, at best.

But, in a recent The Atlantic article, “Bill Gates: More Profit than Prophet,” Tom McNichol evaluates Gates’s foresight on its own terms. As reproduced below, he finds it more “miss” than “hit.”

In general, Gates makes the mistakes outlined in Future Savvy, particularly in predicting the future based on its technological possibility rather than economic or social practicality. He’s short on systemic/feedback thinking and therefore misses side effects and unintended consequences. He also falls into the wishful-thinking bias: mixing up what he and (and Microsoft business) would like the future to be with what it really will be.

This last factor is less a mistake than a classic tool of future advocacy, and Gates would no doubt admit to a bit of this. It is illuminating (and sobering for future predictors) to see how much of the digital future Microsoft had within in its area of control in 1995, which it ceded to others. That lowered Microsoft’s ability to influence the road ahead and therefore weakened Gates’ predictions.

The McNichol analysis (shortened in places):

E-Mail
Prediction: Gates wrote, “Electronic mail and shared screens will eliminate the need for many meetings. … when face-to-face meetings do take place, they will be more efficient because participants will have already exchanged background information by e-mail. … information overload is not unique to the (information) highway, and it needn’t be a problem.”
Verdict: Miss. Gates’s view of e-mail now seems naively Utopian, failing to account for unintended consequences. If anything, e-mail has made workplace meetings more frequent and less efficient. “Didn’t you get that e-mail?” is probably the single most common question posed at meetings, a query that often leads to … another meeting.

The Wallet PC
Prediction: “You’ll be able to carry the wallet PC in your pocket or purse. It will display messages and schedules and also let you read or send electronic mail and faxes, monitor weather and stock reports, play both simple and sophisticated games, browse information if you’re bored, or choose from among thousands of easy-to-call up photos of your kids.”
Verdict: Hit. Gates’s wallet PC is more or less today’s mobile smartphone with voice capability added.

Wireless Networks
Prediction: “The wireless networks of the future will be faster, but unless there is a major breakthrough, wired networks will have a far greater bandwidth. Mobile devices will be able to send and receive messages, but it will be expensive and unusual to use them to receive an individual video stream.”
Verdict: Miss. Today, receiving a wireless video stream is neither expensive nor unusual; in fact, it’s so commonplace that most people don’t give it a second thought. Gates failed to anticipate that wireless would become cheaper and faster, but his chief mistake was a common but flawed assumption among techno-futurists: that new technology is adopted chiefly on the basis of technological superiority rather than social factors.

Social Networking
Prediction: “The (information) highway will not only make it easier to keep up with distant friends, it will also enable us to find new companions. Friendships formed across the network will lead naturally to getting together in person.”
Verdict: Hit and Miss. One of the killer apps of the information highway has turned out to be social networking… But friendships formed online don’t regularly lead to face-to-face meetings. Far more common is the user with 250 Facebook friends, most of whom he rarely, if ever, sees in person.

Online Shopping
Prediction: “Because the information highway will carry video, you’ll often be able to see exactly what you’ve ordered. … you won’t have to wonder whether the flowers you ordered for your mother by telephone were really as stunning as you’d hoped. You’ll be able to watch the florist arrange the bouquet, change your mind if you want, and replace wilting roses with fresh anemones.”
Verdict: Miss. Gates was right that the information highway would carry video, but he completely misread the social and economic factors that would shape its use in online commerce. How on earth would a harried florist find the time to hold a videoconference with every customer who orders flowers for Mother’s Day? What company would absorb the colossal expense of having orders changed at the last second according to customers’ shifting whims? Gates’s vision of online shopping has turned out to be a lot like past predictions about personal jet packs and moving sidewalks: a future that’s technologically possible but socially and economically impractical.

Videoconferencing
Prediction: “Small video devices using cameras attached to personal computers or television sets will allow us to meet readily across the information highway with much higher quality pictures and sound for lower prices.”
Verdict: Hit. What came to be called webcams are standard issue on PCs, or can be purchased from Bill Gates’s favorite company for under $30.

The Internet and the Web
Prediction: Gates’s 286-page book mentions the World Wide Web on only four of its pages, and portrays the Internet as a subset of a much a larger “Information Superhighway.” … Verdict: Miss. Gates’s notion that the Internet would play a supporting role in the information highway of the future, rather than being the highway itself, was out-of-date the day The Road Ahead was published… and he made major revisions to a second edition of The Road Ahead, adding material that highlighted the significance of the Internet. In many ways, Gates’s cloudy crystal ball regarding the Internet amounted to wishful thinking. Gates built Microsoft into a global powerhouse by selling proprietary software that users loaded onto their PCs. He wasn’t likely to warm to the idea that the same functions could be delivered cheaper and faster through a decentralized network that he couldn’t control.

Privacy
Predication: “A decade from now, you may shake your head that there was ever a time when any stranger or wrong number could interrupt you at home with a phone call. … by explicitly indicating allowable interruptions, you will be able to establish your home — or anywhere you choose — as your sanctuary.”
Verdict: Little Hit, Big Miss. It’s true that technology lets you explicitly indicate allowable interruptions — you can use caller ID to dodge unwanted calls or sign up at the National Do Not Call Registry to nix telemarketers. But the notion that technology would pave the way to greater privacy has turned out to be anything but true.

I was lucky enough to be asked to do the opening address at the conference, and even luckier in that this Web site: South Africa – The Good News summarized some of what I and others said:

“Adam Gordon, Foresight Project Director and author of “Future Savvy” gave us some pointers:

1. Beware of sector experts, they are deeply entrenched in the present.
2. The consumer and choice is the determinant, not technology.
3. Change is about overestimating followed by underestimating.
4. Trends are patterns in the data, behind the trend are enablers and drivers, but frictional forces exist and in front of the trend are turners and blockers.
5. Trend extrapolation is limited, don’t fall foul of the turkey syndrome.
6. There is well behaved and badly behaved change. Both can be predictable and unpredictable. The potential of sudden shifts always lurks.
7. Scenario planning wraps up the key uncertainties over which we have no control.

.
“The ‘BIG’ question he asks is ‘when do we influence the future and when do we adapt?’ There are big predictable forces out there (like population growth / the diminishing availability of oil etc), and there are big unpredictable forces out there (ja, well no fine!). Importantly, we can design our ability to influence and we can design the way we adapt. It is critical that we are able to do both.

“But managing the future is more than just about scenario planning, it is also about the implementation of the plan. It is about developing a methodology that prioritises, engages with stakeholders, and enables proactive actions on the ground.

So how?

Some important considerations (from various speakers):

1. Often we know what causes the problem (poverty, crime, HIV) but we don’t know what to do about it.
2. Often the logic that gives rise to the problem is not the logic that will solve the problem.
3. Mostly the problem does not contain the makings of the solution.
4. Solutions in one area can exacerbate problems in another.
5. The current situation has momentum, change to the system should happen concurrently not suddenly.

.
“What is critical is the foresight process, it must be well-informed so that the implementation strategies that follow have buy-in, are doable, are relevant and far-reaching. There is a very real danger of visions being disconnected, unachievable and, at the end of the day, a pipe-dream.”

Dr Elizabeth Dostal talked of a stakeholder democracy in which she promoted the design of a matrix that recognised different stakeholder levels on the vertical axis and different environmental dimensions on the horizontal axis. A multi-level, multi-dimensional model.

“Imagine” she said, “putting four Nobel Peace laureates together and asking them what the causes of global conflict are. One may argue poverty, another ideology, another resources, and another greed. In no time, they would all be in different silo’s defending their view, in one sense they are all right, but in another sense they have not looked at the whole picture. A multi-level, multi-dimensional model would reveal this, the gaps in their logic, and the opportunities for agreement.”

Front page 'Competing for the Future' Hamel & Prahalad, HBR 1994

.
As many have commented, Prahalad made great strides in getting business to see the potential in emerging markets and ‘poor’ consumers, in The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid and allied work.

In our rush for the new and latest, early work often gets buried. So I would like, as my take on the passing of Prahalad, to go back to his fundamental testimony to the role of and need for foresight in management, which is to be found in his co-authored piece (with Gary Hamel) ‘Competing for the Future,’ Harvard Business Review, 1994, which became a very famous book of the same name. Sixteen years on and now in the wake of the credit crunch, this piece remains as relevant as it ever was:

“Ask yourself: Do senior managers in my company have a clear and shared understanding of how the industry may be different ten years from now? Is my company’ point of view about the future unique among competitors?

“On average managers devote less than 3% of their time building a corporate perspective on the future.

“The painful upheavals in so many companies in recent years reflect the failure of one-time industry leaders to keep up with the accelerating pace of industry change… Those companies were run by managers, not leaders, by maintenance engineers, not architects.

“If the future is not occupying senior managers, what is? Restructuring and reegineering. While both are legitimate and important tasks, they have more to do with shoring up today’s business than with building tomorrow’s industries. Any company that is a bystander on the road to the future will watch its structure, values, and skills become progressively less attuned to industry realities.

(therefore) “Most layoffs at large US companies have been the fault of managers who fell asleep at the wheel and missed the turnoff for the future.

“If senior executives don’t have reasonably detailed answers to the ‘future’ questions, and if the answers they have are not significantly different of the ‘today’ answers, there is little chance that their companies will remain market leaders.

“The Quest for Foresight: Why do we talk of foresight rather than vision? Vision connotes a dream or an apparition, and there is more to industry foresight than a blinding flash of insight. Industry foresight is based on deep insights into trends in technology, demographics, regulations, and lifestyles, which can be harnessed to rewrite industry rules and create new competitive space.”

Footnote: this from the FT: The last time CK spoke to the FT he was buzzing with intellectual energy. “Really, in all my career I have been interested in ‘next practices’, and not merely ‘best practices’,” he said.

So may I say, this is what I was trying to say: When trying to predict the future, watch for dog poop!

Or perhaps: apparently helpful guides to the future are often dog poop disguised as chocolate, and here’s how to know the difference.

Something like that.

Note that this Greenbang story, below, is damaged by letting the most extreme predictions (the howlers) stand in for the general item. Prediction howler-spotting is sobering, but misses how many people got the future right, or right enough to make excellent decisions, and therefore overly damages the foresight field.

Also, howlers are actually the low-hanging fruit. Being future savvy is ultimately about the more subtle job of correcting weighing apparently very credible and well-founded predictions, some of which are excellent, but others of which are far flimsier than they appear.

There are various other minor problems such as not knowing the difference between the Gartner Hype Cycle and Zeitgeist bias, etc. And I would never call myself, not even in my most self-deprecating moments, a “futurologist.” But anyway, as I said, just a bit of fun:

Greenbang (13th April 2010) by Trish Lorenz & Martin Wright: Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Niels Bohr’s words are a wise warning to reckless forecasters.

“Combining a nuclear reactor with a home boiler is no longer a problem. It would heat and cool the house, provide unlimited hot water and melt the snow from sidewalks and driveways. All that could be done for six years on a single charge of fissionable material costing about $300.” — Robert Ferry, US Institute of Boiler and Radiator Manufacturers, 1955

“Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in ten years.” — Alex Lewyt, President of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp, also 1955

Lewyt and Ferry both stumbled into a risky habit of all amateur futurists: extrapolating from present trends. In this case, they were caught up in the surge of excitement over the rise of nuclear power. They were not alone. In the tech-fuelled optimism of the ’50s, magazines, radio and the infant TV were buzzing with predictions of flying cars and lunar settlements.

They had fallen victim to what later became known as the Gartner Hype Cycle. This maps the enthusiasm and subsequent disillusionment typical in the introduction of new technology — a useful reality check for those caught up in “irrational optimism.”

By contrast, there are those whose feet are too firmly rooted in present realities, and fail to see how innovation can combine with social changes to speed the widespread adoption of new technology.

“The Americans need the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, Royal Mail, 1878

“The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.” — President of the Michigan Savings Bank, advising Henry Ford’s lawyer not to invest in Ford Motors, 1903

It is difficult to consider any factor that doesn’t apparently exist at the time of making a prediction, but that’s essentially what looking ahead requires. It wasn’t all that long ago when people were predicting a bright future for teletext and fax machines. Few would have anticipated that both would be made almost obsolete by the internet and email. And yet the weak signals were there for those who chose to hear them. A fax machine, after all, is simply a modem with a rather complex print interface attached. It only evolved as it did because people were unused to reading information solely on screen, and computers were too big to carry around with them. Once laptops took off in the early ’90s, the fax was doomed.

“There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, Chairman, Digital Equipment Corp, 1977

Australian Senator Dr Russell Trood sums it up neatly when he says: ” ‘Nowism’ is a serious occupational hazard for those in the prediction game.”

Today’s futurologists no longer try to predict a single outcome for the future; instead they map a variety of scenarios. For Adam Gordon of Future Savvy, scenario-based thinking gives people “permission to think through alternative outcomes without necessarily predicting them.” Instead of trying to forecast precisely what might happen, he says, “we can ask ‘What if it does?,’ and then explore the outcomes and our responses.” Such thinking characterises much of the strategy adopted by forward-looking governments on tackling climate change.

James Goodman, head of Futures at Forum for the Future, agrees: “People think it’s the output that’s important, but actually it’s the process.” And, he adds, “All future planning has uncertainty at its heart.”

Or as Martin Raymond, Strategy and Insight Director at The Future Laboratory, says, “We always try to spot the dog
poop in our forecast.”

Greenbang Editor’s note: This was a guest article by Trish Lorenz and Martin Wright at Forum for the Future. This piece originally appeared in Green Futures, which is published by Forum for the Future and is the leading magazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable — and can be profitable, too.

Reading analysis by John Tamny in Forbes, I lighted on the following paragraph — as perfect an encapsulation of why looking to the future in timely and in a high-quality way is essential, and how quality horizon scanning is integral to it:

“As often happens as companies grow, Blockbuster concentrated on perfecting its existing service while beating competitors offering the same instead of looking into ways that outsiders might destroy its business model altogether… For Blockbuster, the “disrupter” in question was Netflix. Indeed, popular as the Blockbuster brand was, getting to the video store in order to take advantage of its services was a hassle for customers–as was returning videos on time to avoid paying late fees. The rise of Netflix from well outside the traditional retail space meant these problems were solved in one fell swoop.” (my italics)

Change that matters, that is, relatively sudden and acutely disruptive to incumbent business-model success, always comes from outside an industry. Britannica wasn’t beaten by another encyclopedia. Eastman Kodak was beaten by digital photo startups, not by Fuji. And so on, and so on, through industry failure, whether it leads merely to value hemorrhage or all the way to Chapter 11.

Looking vs seeing

Sure there are companies that lose because they are simply outcompeted, that is, are less capable than the competition in doing the same thing. Hertz is currently in this category. But when a clear market leader, with brand and capital and customers galore comes totally unstuck, it is always new technology and/or new business model coming from the outside that has done it. In these cases, as with Blockbuster, companies fall to industry entrants that change ways of doing things, solving pain or trade-offs that buyers suffer, or otherwise provide consumers with more value.

These are always, theoretically, innovations incumbents could have done themselves if they were ready to think ahead (and brave enough, when required, to cannabalize existing products that stood in the way of important future steps) and therein lies a conundrum about looking at new, external competitors. It’s seldom that the incumbent can’t see the intruder, that is, is not looking. Often they are looking intensively. It is that they don’t see the absolute disruption in the new until it is too late. It is a problem of perception. This is why industry horizon scanning is a little about the easy task of looking, and a lot about the much harder job of seeing. And why putting one’s corporate head down and making an existing product or service ‘more perfect’ is part of not seeing.

* Interestingly, the Blockbuster demise was called exactly right in November 2007 by Don Reisinger on CNET.

“Profiles of the Future” at the Foresight Institute 2010 conference

Says Saffo: “Futurists today are talking to the wrong people, don’t have good methods (for the most part,) and are still doing the kinds of silly things we did (or they did) when futurism got started…We should have an instant prohibition on anyone who writes an article titled: ‘Top 10 Trends to Watch’… We’ve got to get rid of this ‘future entertainment’ stuff and ‘top-10 trends’ stuff, and get serious.”

Part of the raison d’etre of Future Savvy, of course, is to demythologize exactly this kind of self-promoting infotainment foresight, and give real-world managers a way to see through it. Thinking long-term is too important to allow it to be tainted by snake-oil salesmen. Saffo admits he’s ranting on this topic (as I do too.) In a less ranting mode, he would probably admit there are also many high-quality thinkers doing exemplary foresight work. Certainly he’s all in favor of thinking long-term, and doing it better.

Saffo’s solution? “Move foresight to the masses; make policy conversations cool; engage powerful myopics (short-term thinkers on Wall Street and other financial institutions); engage politicians (incl. via the OTA). But he doesn’t say how, and of course therein lies the rub.

.

The BBC futures document is a careful and thoughtful piece of work, making bold foresight-oriented moves: saying, essentially, what are we here for? To provide quality media in the public interest. So what do we need to do/make/change to achieve it, that is, to deliver on our core mission, in the years ahead?
.
To this end, the blueprint talks about “setting new boundaries:
• Recognising the lead role that commercial radio plays in serving popular music to 30-50 year-old audiences, through the proposed closure of 6 Music and the refocusing of Radio 1 and Radio 2
• Recognising the lead role that Channel 4 and other broadcasters can play in addressing the gap in public service television for younger teenagers, through the closure of targeted teen propositions
• Reducing spending on programmes from abroad by 20%, from £100m today to £80m in 2013, capping it thereafter at this level of 2.5p in every licence fee pound
• Setting a limit on what the BBC can spend on sports rights at an average of 9p in every licence fee pound
• Leaving room for local newspapers and others to develop in a digital world by keeping the BBC’s current pattern of local services, and not launching new services in England at any more local a level than today
• Focusing original content on BBC Online on the (five) content priorities only, and excluding whole categories of online activity such as web search, communications and non-content related social networking.”

Further in the document it talks about “a set of web-native activities that the BBC itself will not undertake, including:
• The BBC’s search activity will be limited to its own website and associated external links; it will not do general web search for all-web content
• It will not run its own general communications services such as email, webmail or instant messaging
• It will not create stand-alone social networking sites, with any social propositions on the BBC site only there to aid engagement with BBC content. The BBC will also ensure that its social activity works with external social networks
• There will be no specialist content for a specialist audience, such as business-critical information in specialist fields, legal, financial (including trading tools) or other professional content.”
.
From the beeb’s perspective, it makes perfect sense. It can’t be the best at everything to everyone. That just means it will be working at the limits of its reach in many areas, against focused competitors, which dilutes its brand, and of course spending public money on commercial services already relatively well catered to.

The politics of engagement

It’s business strategy 101, and if it were a business that would be that. But the BBC is a multi-stakeholder public service body, and therein lies the rub. Everyone has a say in its future. And different stakeholders have different ideas of what is ‘in the public interest’: many think commercial radio etc., is in their interest, so protest is mounting, particularly among younger users under banners that read ‘BBC turns it’ back on a generation’ and so on. Twitter is humming.

Good multi-stakeholder future work requires engagement and consultation, and the BBC is offering a consultative process — from now until May 25 — see the page at https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk

The future? Let’s not mince words that are usually minced. The future is political. That is part of the reason prediction is done so poorly — people miss the fact or extent of contention over outcomes, even ones you would think are in everyone’s interest (mitigating climate change, for example.)

When there are many interested parties with different interests, and therefore contending claims on the future — different visions of the ‘ideal’ future — the flavor of the future (in total or in compromise) will belong to the interest with the stronger hand. So depending on the power of the stakeholders soon-to-be-unhappy, the BBC will be forced to bend or not. But in the hardball world of multistakeholder change, chances are the Director General has set his stall out a bit further than he need to, and will be able to ‘compromise’ to a position that is more or less the plan. Good futuring all round.

Charles Munger

First, let me say, what I like about investors (and managers and entrepreneurs) with long-term track records of success, is it means — it must mean, by definition — they have a high quality view of the future. Not only a high-quality view, but a high quality view that renews itself. There is no doubt that Berkshire Hathaway has consistently over time had a better view of the future than most expert forecasters, policy pundits, and futurists. The record is clear.

Anyway, Munger this week offers a parable about Basicland, a C18 Pacific island colonized by Europeans where: “Property rights were greatly respected and strongly enforced. The banking system was simple… Almost no debt was used to purchase or carry securities or other investments, including real estate and tangible personal property…  Speculation in Basicland’s security and commodity markets was always rigorously discouraged and remained small…

“(But) as their affluence and leisure time grew, Basicland’s citizens more and more whiled away their time in the excitement of casino gambling… Many of the gamblers were highly talented engineers attracted partly by casino poker but mostly by bets available in the bucket shop systems, with the bets now called “financial derivatives.”

And so it goes on, telling the history of America and the route to the Credit Crunch, and potential for new misery going forward, via this parable. He uses the parable as parables have always been used, to say something in ‘make-believe-land’ that cannot be said (or will not be heard) in reality. The folly of Basicland’s citizens and government is much easier to acknowledge than our own. Scenarios of the future are similar in function, similarly allowing mental and institutional ‘permission’ to think the unthinkable and ‘say the unsayable.

The worst investor in America

Munger wouldn’t be the first to say: “Change yer ways or ye be doomed.” Isaiah and many before and since have said that. Nor would he be the first old white guy to espouse traditional ways of doing things. We factor that in. But he does look to basics and basics are important in having a high-quality view of the future. They signal the limits of the excess and reversion-to-the-mean imperatives.

I remember in the 1990s, when I was living in Washington DC, and Warren Buffet was “the worst investor in America” for missing out on the dot.com boom and Nasdaq bonanza. He just stuck to his guns saying, time after time, ‘there are no fundamentals behind these valuations (aka, this is just a casino) and fundamentals will prevail, which of course they did.

Now the brains at Berkshire Hathaway are saying that forums where risk, debt, currencies, etc., are up for speculation are ‘casinos,’ and their players therefore gamblers (rather than, as they would have it, ‘investors), and that they produce little fundamental value and fundamentals will prevail.