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.

.

Tweet This Post

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?”

Tweet This Post

Controversy has resulted from lack of transparency in the tests, leading to speculation that they are designed to have most banks “pass” in order to boost confidence — as clear an example of mixing up judgment and advocacy as one is likely to get.

The key measure for determining which of the 91 banks fail the test — and need to raise capital — is whether their Tier 1 capital ratio would fall below 6% under the “loss assumptions” imposed by the test. This is the same level that was required in the stress tests of U.S. banks in its similar May 2010 test.

Model worlds

Anyhow, what is particularly interesting to this author is that the concept “scenario planning” has not been used through the bank test process, but these tests are fundamentally future scenarios, this is what scenarios are all about: creating model future worlds that express the evolution of important uncertainties towards somewhere at the limits (but not beyond) of plausibility, with the specific intent to use these worlds to stress test current decisions as to what a company is and does — from its business model to its resource base to product line to marketing, and so on.

If the organization’s key decisions would hold up (produce profitability or however success is defined) in different, alternative tests, this tells managers theirs are probably good decisions for the future. If they would flop in any test, this points to what needs to be urgently addressed. In this way an organization explores and becomes robust to its unknowable and unpredictable future.

Notably, it is precisely the stress-test purpose of scenarios that stops this foresight technique becoming (as it does all-too-often in the wrong hands) a “wishing well” for better times. When scenarios cease to be direct stress tests of present decisions, they become floaty indeed.

Full scenarios

Having said all this, the difference between the US and European banking stress tests and full scenario work is the bank tests are considering only economic factors, only adverse (risk) conditions, and only “known unknowns.” Full scenarios would include the full range of important drivers of change — and potential surprises — outside of economics or finance in their construction. In operating as stress tests, they would look at threats to the status quo as the bank tests do, but also provide a testbed for exploring opportunities in change.

Tweet This Post

.
“The world around us is changing in ways that may have profound effects on the emergency management enterprise. Collectively, we must begin to think more broadly and over a longer timeframe if we are to understand these changes and their potential impacts. To this end, FEMA has launched a Strategic Foresight initiative (SFI), the objective of which is straightforward: to seek to understand how the world around us is changing and how those changes may affect the future of emergency management and our community…

“The SFI can serve as one important tool in the development of both strategy and plans. By understanding the potential future environment, organizations will better understand and anticipate risk while ensuring opportunities can be fully capitalized. For example, the SFI may identify new or increasing capability requirements as well as emerging capabilities that do not exist today. Such identifications could support decisions about future investments as well as planning activities and exercises. In a more indirect manner, the SFI can help establish a research agenda for the emergency management field by highlighting areas of emerging relevance and the key questions that remain unanswered.”

[On March 1, 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.]

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

.
The point is, this is not the future of housing. Many hyper-efficient solutions have been designed over the years — many such “machines for living in,” that worked perfectly as rational solutions but failed the social-market adoption test, and therefore did not become part of the future. The future is always what we (as a whole) choose from among what designers and technologists can create.

This prototype will fail it’s future-adoption test. Humans don’t live rationally. If I rolled my desk to the ceiling, I’d be showered with papers and headphones and flying coffee cups. You would too, no doubt.

Having said that, the inventive thinking here is intense and admirable. This prototype is like a good scenario in that it functions in the liminal zone between the plausible and implausible, allowing us to consider options and problems (and their solutions) that otherwise we would be blind to.

I can see some elements of this prototype finding their way into urban hyper-density new-build apartments, and when they do it will be fair to say the “futures thinking” was done here, in this project.
.

Tweet This Post

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.”

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

The podcast is up at the Abenteuer Leben site, playable via the buttons on the right hand side.

Alternatively it can be accessed directly at

http://media1.roadkast.com/abenteuerzukunft/DAZ71_120410_6tt6.mp3

(If you don’t speak German, you need to fast forward through the first 3 minutes.)

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

In a fascinating recent development, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, introduced the Start-up Visa Act to the US Senate, as reported in Inc. magazine.

The legislation is a forward-looking bid to turbo-charge entrepreneurial venturing in the U.S. by attracting foreign entrepreneurs and connecting them to U.S. capital, therein driving new economic growth and local jobs. What’s really interesting is it goes against past common wisdom that recessions are ‘bad for immigration’ (as citizens demand job protection.)

If passed, the bill gives U.S. visas to foreigners who can raise $100,000 from an angel investor or $250,000 from a qualified VC firm. After two years, if the immigrant entrepreneur can create five or more jobs (excluding family), attract an additional $1 million in investment, or produce $1 million in revenue, he or she gets a green card (permanent residency.)

The only current option, the EB-5 business investment visa, requires immigrants to invest at least $1 million in the U.S. and employ 10 people.

Job creation

The  National Venture Capital Association says 25 percent of America’s venture-backed, publicly-traded businesses, incl. Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Intel have been founded or co-founded by immigrants. According to Richard Herman, author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy, nearly all U.S. job creation in the past 20 years has come from companies less than five years old.

The history of US immigration policy has been schizophrenic to say the least, with periods of great social openness followed by about-face door slamming. The slamming has always corresponded to economic downturns or anxiety thereto. But here we have the opposite effect. And we have legislators taking a forward view! Both proof that the future is sure to surprise us.

Tweet This Post

“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.

.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

Toyota President Akio Toyoda, Feb 11, 2010. Pic: AP

Lean manufacturing creates efficiencies and shaves production costs by creating just-in-time — no inventory — systems, using common parts and designs across product lines, and generally squeezing materials, processes, and (inevitably) quality controls. This may or may not include pressing suppliers to lower prices, and therefore squeeze their own materials, processes, and quality controls. ‘Lean’ has been very much a core process and operations mantra for about two decades. To misquote a favorite saying, manufacturing companies have been adamant: ‘one can never be too rich or too lean.’

But now Toyota has had a slew of embarrassing recalls — the 2010 Highlander; 2008 – 2010 Sequoia SUVs; and 2009 – 2010 RAV4′s due to gas pedal problems. It has just recalled 437,000 Prius and other hybrid vehicles worldwide to fix brake problems. In 2009 it recalled Corolla, Camry, Vios and Yaris sedans due to faulty electric window-control systems.

The point of the WSJ piece is to implicate lean manufacturing in this. (It’s unclear whether it’s too much lean or too little quality control, but they are clearly connected.) Now, lean as an idea is not going to go away. Nobody is suddenly going to advocate ‘bloat manufacturing,’ but looking at the damage in reputation and bottom line that Toyota has soaked up, the company and others like it will obviously looking across their lines and saying to themselves ‘a bit of redundancy (fat, if you like) in the system will be cheaper than this.’ Thus the pendulum swings back from lean extreme to somewhere a bit more durable. A happy medium.

Maharaj Mac

In the other story, the Times reports how McDonalds is seeing benefits from localization of it’s menu, for example, offering the McItaly in Italy, the (non-beef) Maharaja Mac in India, the McLobster in Canada and the Ebi Filit-O (shrimp burger) in Japan. The pendulum effect here is that McDo became the mega-corporation it is based on global standardization and a ‘one-menu’ mantra from Cleveland to Taipei. It wasn’t just one menu, but each item had to be produced from the same stock, and in the same way. McDo fries were identical everywhere, that was the guarantee (and they were always called ‘fries’ no matter what locals called them.)

It is now become common cause among the global food companies (notably Starbucks and KFC) to work local options into their offering. One may think this is merely ‘think global, act local.’ The point is, it is an about-turn indeed from the ‘think American, act global’ that went before. What works best is in fact a happy medium.

What does this have to do with better future-thinking? Expect a recall sooner or later on forecasts that don’t see change resolving itself around a happy medium.

Tweet This Post

Anyway, this is in the intro (p5), and I found it a perfect encapsulation of a core problem in foresight thinking — quantitative vs qualitative methods — well worth retyping out to have on hand for reflection. Here goes:

“The story that I have to tell is marked all the way through by a persistent tension between those who assert that the best decisions are based on quantification and numbers, determined by the patterns of the past, and those who base their decisions on more subjective degrees of belief about the uncertain future This is a controversy that has never been resolved.
The issue boils down to one’s view about the extent to which the past determines the future. We cannot quantify the future, because it is an unknown, but we have learned how to use numbers to scrutinize what happened in the past. But to what degree should we rely on the patterns of the past to tell us what the future will be like? Which matters more when facing a risk, the facts as we see them or our subjective belief in what lies hidden in the void of time? Is risk management a science or an art? Can we even tell for certain precisely where the dividing line between the two approaches lies?
It is one thing to set up a mathematical model that appears to explain everything. But when we face the struggle of daily life, of constant trial and error, the ambiguity of the facts as well as the power of the human heartbeat can obliterate the model in short order.”

Tweet This Post

Those of you who know this blog know that I try to keep it updated every 7-10 days with real content I have personally written. But this last week I have held back my posts. In the wake of the truly humbling loss of life and human calamity we have seen, somehow no futures posting seemed quite right.

In a foresight community we are, I think, rightly vociferous in getting decision makers to see the benefits of taking a long-term view, despite the systemic short-termism of incentive cycles (annual reports, political elections, and – dare I say it – banking bonuses) that most organizations and human systems use as basis of reward. But at times like this, similar to post-Katrina, post-the 2004 tsunami, and previous epic-scale natural and human disasters, we should not bury our heads in the sand of tomorrow. For now it is the present that counts: focusing on what matters to save lives and give food, shelter, and a modicum of respect to those with shattered lives.

The ‘social’ side of disasters

When the dust does finally settle, and there is time to draw some lessons, there are two future-anticipating principles that apply strongly in the Haiti disaster. The first is that fragile systems are always more likely to have ‘a collapse in their future.’ I’ve been reading Flirting with Disaster by Marc Gerstein, and one of its points (not new, but well described) is the role that human organization plays in facilitating or magnifying a ‘natural’ disaster. Yes, an earthquake can’t be controlled, or even forecast, but what its actual total impact is (the future we should have anticipated) has significantly to do with the efficacy of human organization, including preparedness, robustness, early-warning, and mitigation systems. Where these are in place and working well we should expect a different future.

Put another way: since man has had any say over his domain there have been no purely ‘natural’ disasters, and there will not be any in the future. Every future disaster will likewise be the product of natural forces meeting social organization.

Opportunity jolts

The second principle is that change often happens by jolts, that is, via the application of a sudden and overwhelming force rather than via gradualism. Particularly, a shock from the outside can ‘free up’ a situation and be the catalysing event that sets off wider and ultimately fundamental change. This is (best case interpretation) what the toppling of Saddam was about. Freeing the system. ‘Black Swan –ing’ the system, perhaps.

It the case of Haiti we have, by all accounts, a nation mired in poverty and corruption. What it is going to get from the events of the last week and the weeks to come, is like a punch in the jaw followed by a lot of world attention, solace, and aid. Add them together and it could be a system-busting event, a real opportunity to break out of existing governance cultures and existing global relations. History suggests Haiti won’t grasp the opportunity, but the window will be open for a while, and good foresight would keep this potential upside scenario in mind and even work to facilitate it.

Tweet This Post

Witness the uptake of ‘feudal’ protection in a competitive, recessionary marketplace, where Wal-Mart is offering rental space insde a new Chicago store to neighborhood businesses. Apparently tenants already include a dog groomer and a fried chicken outlet, and Wal-Mart is going to be inviting in barbers, manicurists, and other local small businesses.

Regional general manager Rolando Rodriguez told the NY Times: “We want the same resurgence of the community…”.

It’s not all about community of course. Wal-Mart is seeking counter-PR to endemic criticism (and evidence) that their megastores kill mom-and-pop shops on which many local jobs and services depend, and is hoping the gambit will revive its six-year stalled bid for the city’s approval of proposed Chicago stores.

Anyway, as one observer, Marissa Johnson, said of the new arrangement: “It’s like sharecropping.”

Yes, this is the return of a feudal model. The lord owns the land and the small guy works his patch, offering a regular tribute. And small guys will jump at it because — in the absence of fundamental challenge to an iniquitous system — having the protection of a lord is better than not having it.

Another need that’s not going away, merely being reinterpreted (ironically back to pre-feudal organization) is our need to mark the darkest night of the year with ritual. Yule is the pagan winter solstice rite centered on a December 21 dusk-to-dawn vigil. It was absorbed into Christmas and not widely practiced for centuries. But now, as reported in the big UK media Christmas pregame show, there’s been a great surge in Yule festivities and attendance. By how much depends on who is quoted but nobody is denying the trend — which more or less mirrors the decline in formal Christian Christmas (secular, gift-giving, tree decorating Christmas is alive and well.)

The need is a constant. The rituals will change, often mining the past.

Tweet This Post

So to the Copenhagen climate change summit, and all the luminaries and dignitaries and celebrities landing at København airport, many of them in private jets.

http://www.cph.dk/CPH/DK/MAIN

This tells us something about the future, and what it says is: ‘needs must.’ What are they going to do, row a boat to Copenhagen? Scale that up and you have the real, actual future. People will fly. In fact the entire new global middle class of billions will fly. And they will heat their homes. And they will eat meat, and so on. And any even remotely democratic system that tries to take away this will be out on its ear.

But we will of course move to cleaner, renewable, sustainable systems. How fast this happens depends essentially on money, which in turn depends on political will, which in turn depends on public concern. Money is required to fund new energy technology research, and — the core issue of Copenhagen this week — it is needed to buy off industrializing countries.

There’s no doubt that climate change (manmade or not) is real, and a real danger. But when scientists and academics are worried about it that means little in terms of changes to human practices. When the public gets concerned — as they now are — we get the possibility of fundamental change. This is true of the future generally, not just climate and the environment.

Between the public sentiment and the money lies political will. Essentially the political will of post-industrial economies on the one side, who find it politically easy, relatively, to pay the price of emissions constraints vs. that of developing economies which will be choked economically and therefore politically by those constraints.

Inequality

Correlating degrees warming with ecological and therefore social upheaval is important. But to think that is what the argument is about is to miss the point. The point is global inequality and its future, and how developing economies are not going to allow emissions constraints to further entrench it.

The future goes always to the most powerful side. That’s what power is for: determining the future. The sides are both strong in this dispute, so this battle will not be won or lost in Copenhagen this week. We are still in its early stages. The effects of climate change are incremental (unlike, say, nuclear holocaust) meaning there is plenty of room for postponement even if the planet can’t and won’t ultimately take it. And those who would occupy the moral high ground have burned public and private jet fuel to be there to do it, and will no doubt indulge in a bit of Smørrebrød and Frikadeller too. Needs must.

So expect the political clock to remain stuck as it has been for a while now, at ’5 minutes to midnight,’ while the issue smolders slowly without definitive resolution — until technology advances get human energy, finally, off fossil fuels and the problem works its way out of environmental and human systems.

Tweet This Post

Keynesian or saltwater economics by contrast holds that free markets often behave irrationally and inefficiently, and therefore need corrective policy from government. Saltwater economists say people and institutions often behave in ways contrary to the general good, or in ways that can bring markets (on which they depend) to their knees. Sound familiar?

Anyway, a recent Knowledge@Wharton article comments: “Like a natural science, freshwater economics lends itself to complex, often elegant mathematical modeling. The freshwater view is that consumers, offered an array of choices, will select the one that is best for them — a straightforward assertion that can be neatly expressed in mathematical formulae.

“In contrast, many assertions made in behavioral economics are more challenging to express mathematically. ‘Behavioralists’ argue that consumers don’t always act in their own interests, especially when they fail to understand the choices on offer or succumb to irrational impulses involving those choices… but such impulses are inherently vague and difficult to define.”

Cognitive bias

In other words mathematically modeling the economic future is possible if humans and the markets they create are rational, but far less possible if we act irrationally.

Now, as elaborated in Future Savvy, the fact that humans make irrational choices due to many cognitive biases and heuristics  is indisputable, not least since the work of  Tversky and Kahneman. Biases and heuristics such as “anchoring,” “recency effect,” “personal validation fallacy,” “herd mentality,” and so on, in which people make irrational choices, are well documented.

That’s why mathematical projections of economic behavior are unreliable. The economy may be counted in numbers, but it is still a human system, with associated inefficiency and irrationality. Blow this little debate in economic forecasting up large, and you have the essential problem with quantitative forecasting of any type. It assumes, erroneously, a freshwater view of humanity.

Tweet This Post

Imagine you are a turkey. Every day someone comes to feed you. Every day you get bigger. Your portion sizes get bigger too, brought by a nice man at regular intervals. You extrapolate the trend and you confidently predict a bigger you, with more to eat. Regularly too.

But what happens is … Thanksgiving. Or Christmas

Taleb, N., The Fourth Quadrant: a Map of the Limits of Statistics, Edge Foundation, September 2008

The hard reality for those who predict the future by extrapolating trends (and those gullible enough to believe them) is that even if our turkey had excellent data points (carefully observed and accurately recorded in, for example, a time series analysis) and, moreover, even if our turkey was a mathematically sophisticated — not merely simply projecting trends, but applying all the latest modeling techniques, from moving averages to compound regression — he is still going to be wrong about the future. Dead wrong.

All the data analysis in the world, all the fancy computer software, all the consulting time paid for, and he is still a dead duck.

Ouch. The lesson: there may be (or, vexingly, may not be) something outside the trend, a framing condition, which where it does exist is invisible within the trend projector’s mental model. The only way to get a view of the future that is “robust to Thanksgiving” is (a) to question assumed framing conditions, for example through properly done scenarios, and (b) to hold a view of the future which assumes fundamental ‘game-changing’ surprises can and will occur.

If, as they say, “the trend is your friend” it is assuredly only your fair-weather friend.

Tweet This Post