2025 for download: ‘you don’t have to be right, you just have to be interesting.’

Posted by Adam Gordon on Sep 14, 2009 in 2025, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, technology change

I note from a link on the Ian Miles Futures blog that “2025:  Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” by Coates, Hines, & Mahaffie, is now available free for full-text download.

For full disclosure, I should say I worked in the Coates office in Washington D.C. during the mid-late 1990s (but got there just after the book was done.)

There are deep and ultimately overwhelming problems with the book itself. It sees science-technology as the primary driver of change, when what science is done and what technology is produced is often the product of policy or economic or values / zeitgeist decisions further up the chain. It also has an astoundingly poor conceptual framework (‘Worlds 1, 2, 3′) for dealing with non-US societies and cultures, and their economic and social development: one that would make Tom Friedman (‘World is Flat’) giggle and Hans Rosling surely cry. Truly there are many reasons they have to give this book away for free.

But its importance is elsewhere. It remains remarkable for one thing — the thing that the Coates & Jarratt foresight firm was known for — a willingness to speculate confidently and in detail (and sometimes even stupidly) about future changes. The book is likewise exemplary in its commitment to concrete, interesting, ‘fearless’ long-range speculation, in a world where most analysts waste most of their foresight ink timidly equivocating and covering their back.

Quality, reloaded

Evocative, concrete speculation is important, even if it is wrong. It is commonly misapprehended that the purpose of foresight work is to “predict the future,” (and someone with this perspective is going to pop up in 2025 and say “so, how right or wrong was this book?”) But, nobody can be right. The real value of foresight work is other: to know as much as we can about the present, and the forces and factors changing it, to be able to preconceive the full range of possible future outcomes that pertain, in order to make decisions today towards an outcome we prefer. (Who “we” are and what “we” prefer — social welfare; shareholder value maximization; environmental sustainability, etc., — will vary hugely among interest groups of course.)

This preconception (of a range of scenarios, if you like) is what allows truly effective discussions and debates to take place in considering alternatives, and therefore promotes better decision-making regardless of whether the scenarios ultimately turn out to have been, in themselves, ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ High-quality scenarios are to be preferred of course, but quality is in the ability to stimulate and provoke management attention to the right areas in a timely manner, not in having been right in prediction. As Coates used to say (and I echo this to my Industry Foresight students): “You don’t have to be right, you just have to be interesting.”

40 years after Apollo 11, and what no man on Mars can tell us about predicting

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 21, 2009 in 2025, all, failed predictions, forecast filtering, Future Savvy, history, Perils of Prediction, politics of the future, strategic foresight, trend tracking

The copy of USA Today, slipped under my Chicago hotel room door on Friday—failing which I would have missed the event entirely—marks the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 putting man on the moon (July 20, 1969). It says: “40 years after Apollo 11: What’s our Next Step?” The strap goes on: “The moon again? Mars? An asteroid? Four decades after the moon landing, NASA seeks a new—and affordable—frontier in space.”

The failed “our-future-in-space prediction” cluster is useful because it is the poster child for bad predicting, nothing less than foresight idiocy in its purest form, worth mentioning only because it helps us to see smaller and more subtle future-thinking mistakes we make routinely.

This is what I said in Future Savvy (Chapter 5):

“The forecasts that surrounded the future of space travel and exploration are perhaps the most high-profile and comprehensively poor set of forecasts ever made, and therefore provide a good vantage point to consider what can go wrong in forecasting. From the 1950s, space was a huge topic of interest. All significant earthbound exploration challenges had been overcome, technology was moving rapidly, and what lay ahead, unconquered, was space. The need to explore it was deeply in the zeitgeist.
“At the same time, the Cold War created the specific situation where beating the Soviets in prestige projects was an important priority, important enough to divert massive resources to it. J.F. Kennedy’s rousing (future-influencing) 1961 prediction of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade motivated and galvanized the United States, and the resulting Gemini and Apollo programs made this not only a human achievement but a successful prediction. As a result, analysts of all stripes were quick to project the trend and predict a moon base, lunar communities by 2000, followed soon by trips to Mars and beyond, and on to the limits of space. . . .
“The last man to set foot on the moon was in 1973. The Space Shuttle tried to maintain forward momentum under the guise of scientific research, not without disaster, and an almost inconsequential international space station has been built. To this day there are many who cry into their soup over the lack of space exploration and conquest. So what happened? The groundswell of prediction was wrong because it failed to see that putting a few U.S. men into orbit did not add enough value to enough peoples’ lives to justify the expense—particularly in the economically uncertain 1970s. In the end, the majority of consumers voted with their wallets to postpone, if not entirely eviscerate, human space exploration.”

One could go into great detail, but simply put, the intertwined elements resulting in this poor view of the future were:

1. Failure to recognize user utility and the choice consumers make in determining the future. That is, for most people the cost of any space venturing is not worth the benefit (i.e. what benefit?) The fact that we “can do it” is hardly relevant. The real futures question is always: do most people want it? In the 1960s space was “worth it” (particularly in that the goal was clear and bounded) because spending billions on a prestige project made sense at a time of (a) absolute US economic prosperity and (b) ideological dispute with the USSR.

2. Projecting trends without considering the strength of underlying drivers. Space exploration was, apparently, on-the-up in the 1950s and 60s. But trends are only as good as the drivers that support them. When the drivers go away (lack of public support due to cost/benefit issues) the trend stops. In fact, there is no real, dependable, trend to space exploration. There was a blip in the 1960s when conditions temporarily favored a national prestige extravaganza. There wasn’t a trend before, and there hasn’t been any since.

3. Forecasting mired in the conditions or spirit of the present, the zeitgeist. Space was important in the golden-era 50s and 60s; and particularly in that it was arena of competition with the Soviets. But it’s always a mistake to assume the framing conditions of the present will exist in the future, and in this case 40 years later, they most certainly don’t.

Don’t hold your breath

What of 40 years time? It is quite likely that “space flip” flights into orbit will be safe and cheap enough to commercialized in the next decade. Unmanned probes (again safe and relatively cheap) will continue, and popular access to their images and experiences will be greatly enhanced. But that’s all that will happen until such time as costs and other conditions of possibility change fundamentally, which implies a completely new form of space travel, of energy, of materials, and of human resilience and longevity. Not in this century.

Wired Science ran a July 20 article “40 Years After Apollo 11, NASA Maps Out the Future,” which puts the best possible spin on  this unmanned-probe future. It is careful to end without crushing the feelings of space junkies, saying: “Any American landing on Mars through the Constellation program would come some time after 2030.” It won’t happen, and here’s another secret: if anyone is going to land anywhere it will be a Chinese person. China still has prestige projects ahead of it, and human space exploration could be one of them.

Sir Fred Goodwin and the Imperative for Looking Long and Rewarding Longer

Posted by Adam Gordon on Feb 26, 2009 in 2025, all, decision-making, economy & finance, forecast filtering, leadership, lifestyles & values, management, policy, politics of the future, risk management, social change

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

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

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

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

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

Linking big to long

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

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

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

Time on the clock

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

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

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

Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can!” That’s Bob-the-Builder, right?

Posted by Adam Gordon on Nov 7, 2008 in 2025, all, lifestyles & values, social change, trend tracking

The futurist Edie Weiner says, if one wants to see the world, and therefore the future, as it really is, one must look “through the eyes of children or aliens.” That is, strip away our “educated incapacity” – the mental disability that comes with being over-familiar with a situation and therefore embedded in its associations and traditions, which makes it hard to see future change.

I was reminded of this when, as my wife and I were talking happily about the Obama “Yes-We-Can” victory speech, our 3-year-old daughter piped up: “Bob-the-Builder”! [The economy's in crisis, can we fix it?] “Yes we can!” [The war in Iraq, can we fix it?] “Yes we can!”

If this means nothing to you, see http://www.bobthebuilder.com/ca/english/index.asp

This is not subtle stuff, this speechwriting. And politics is nothing if not the art of appealing to the 3-yr-old in all of us. But, as they say, “a win is a win.”

Anyway, it is for the foresight community to to get past the day’s euphoria and ask, what does this mean for the future? I think the win has trend tipping-point implications and allows some future-thinking insights to be accumulated.

The “Hawaiian” Future

One of the things Jim Dator and the Hawaii Research Center for Future Studies have long been saying is, “the future of the world is brown.” The running, long-term trend they are referring to is the movement of power and money from the white West to the brown East, and (eventually) South. And, on similar lines, we have seen rise in number of inter-racial couples (and more acceptance of), and the strong fashion and pop-star chic-ness of being “mixed” race. This aspect of the world’s future has been more obvious, earlier, in Hawaii than other places in the US (and the Obama-Hawaii connection is pertinent here), but now it’s mainstream. This in itself is a lesson that the future is to be seen earlier in some places than others. Anyway, November 4, 2008, is surely the moment where the trend tips and accelerates.

This is not to be naive. Nothing about the result is going to kill racism or ethnic affiliation. The world is a competitive place, and people organize and identify into groups to compete (and restrict access to benefits) more effectively. Whitey halls of privilege will continue to exist. Islamic identification and action will continue to be a huge force, and so on. But now that there is (and in future always will have been) a black person in the world’s top job, nobody can ever look at another person of color and see an intrinsic limitation on what that person can do, be, influence, or own.

Images of the future

For at least half a century the world has known this in theory of course. But theory doesn’t move the world. Pictures move the world. That is, pictures of the future bring the future closer. Obama making the president-elect victory speech, or seeing him and his family move into the White House, will undo more mental models – more educated incapacity – in the area of race than anything that has gone before. For driving the future, the Obama success image is more powerful than a thousand well-meaning affirmative-action programs.

The ratchet effect

The other, simultaneous, foresight principle at work is that change proceeds by ratchet effect. Sticking with politics, the Suffragette movement gathered momentum and finally swept aside millennia of tradition after women were seen to do traditionally “male” jobs during WW1. Here again we have the change-power of images of the future. After women were seen in these new roles there was no way to put the genie back. Yes, social changes can be reversed or stalled (Roe vs Wade is in the mire) but once the image of the future is out there, and minds have absorbed and habituated to it, it may be opposed but never removed. And this is what November 4 promises: visually ratcheting forward the world-wide acceptance of the potential of all people regardless of race as fact not theory – thereby tipping and accelerating the long-term trend to “The Hawaiian Future.”

Scenario planning orientation and methods interview

Posted by Adam Gordon on Aug 7, 2008 in all, foresight tools & methods, horizon scanning, scenario planning, trend tracking

I was interviewed at length about scenario building by a foresight firm in the UK a few weeks back. They took notes (more than I deserved, no doubt) and here they are, below.
In the notes, which are typed live and necessarily brief, I’m “AG”. The others are participants asking questions and making comments…

1. First, what do you use scenario planning for?
Initially stated everyone did scenario planning, every time you find yourself doing something unusual it implies you’ve done something wrong with scenario planning. We think about the future all the time, constantly making scenarios in head, if move to London think about what need to earn, where live, family, critical uncertainties. We run forward, think about various challenges, we rehearse the future.

CL wondered about ill thought through scenarios?

AG felt it was inevitable that people will disagree. End of day scenarios boil down to politics. Visionary scenario planning gets everyone talking – firstly need to find common threads (if not grounds), that most buy into – even if it is a low common denominator, thus creating a shared vision, then dystopias, but remember the end point is never total agreement.

RS Acknowledgment of importance of politics? Is that your experience of foresight?
AG believes he is a political animal, but no longer involved in protest. Belief is power is absolutely important when thinking about the future. He then amends it to power and money – as often groups without power have public opinions so they can shape the future. There is a danger that they only talk about market forces and technology and that’s it.
RS Is it a struggle working with other foresight groups – is that view not shared?
AG says they can give a shared opinion, but politics mostly overlooked by the groups

RS describes that we all have a political agenda (social inclusion, voices excluded) within this project – it makes it interesting to deal with those who have an economic/gov background, it’s difficult to pretend futures neutral.

2. Could you talk me through a brief overview of your scenario planning method? (How long does each stage take? What preparation is required for each stage? How many people are involved in each step?)

There is an underlying method – but each stage has some degree of flexibility and can use a variety of methods.

A. Handshaking stage
Firstly deciding what you’re doing, basic project stuff – who’s involved, what resources, what deliverables – key is choosing method and who’s involved, may have varying degree of democracy – heads or grass roots, be inter disciplinary or not, have a broad or narrow focus, and what type of input is required. Believes it needs to have mixed agenda. Note that relying totally on academics is bad.
Then you need to decide the dates your final scenarios will relate to – further in the future the more radical but less relevant to other people and harder to action. Most future scenarios are around 10 years ahead – as a rule not less than 5 or more than 20.

To decide the focus you must:
1) Drive management team towards understanding how much influence they have over the future, can they drive future or does external events influence them? Percentage, never exact but idea.
2) Based on the amount of control can decide if creating a visionary scenario or anticipatory (not good word) scenario building. Visionary trying to develop an idea, multiple stakeholders get shared ideal, easier if pressure group, one organisation, as they can develop enrich and jump on to focusing on how we would put this into practice. They create a vision and dystopia. Influence future (money, opinion etc).
In anticipatory, or “Businessy type scenario”, participants don’t mind how things turn out, what they want is to be successful in the world however it turns out. Within organisation goal is to anticipate broad set of possible worlds, particularly critical uncertainties. So they do have research scenarios and different takes on how things emerge, BUT no preferred future. Look at resource and competence so they may have preferences but can adapt. To same extent they look at legacy competencies but this is not a determining factor. Scope alternatives and plan.
The Handshaking stage takes a few meetings to do, small with key meeting, then larger with various stakeholders – perhaps half a day.
In terms of materials one could send out stimulating piece to encourage thought so not stone cold but which doesn’t colour the agenda. Could also have to read a synopsis of what the process is about and the sort of things to think about and expect.

B. Horizon scanning
There are 100s of ways of doing this. Basically need to go into world and do research on what’s going on in key dimensions, technology, markets – broad scan of world relevant to issue area, bring in people outside of own industry. Best tool in this area is “learning journey” – jazzy word for anthropology of own society, structured agenda for talking to people about concerns, what they know, what they’d like, focusing on future – so need to be carefully done to avoid reiteration of now or what they think you want to hear.
Note that you can commission this – but it is not market research.
No answer to how long, dependent on time and resources, but should budget third of total time.

C. Pulling it together
Mulch through the data gathered – preferably in funky creative meetings, collate, output into things like forces, drivers of change, trends, blockers of change, critical uncertainties. What comes out is a picture of world that’s relevant to us.
This activity could be whole group or just the scenario developing team – it’s to pull out what’s important.
The format could be something like workshop, sleep/gap, then another half day or so.

D. Separating critical from predetermined
This could require a Mini Delphi, talk to experts to find out what are the sorts of things in forces of change list that are predetermined – so things we know will happen in 2020, perhaps the number of students, or trends to sustainability.
The various issues will have lifecycles in being a key focus, they’ll always be there but the amount of interest will vary, eg sustainability. In the future sustainability will be less of a concern, but not less important, it will just be integrated into our expectations we won’t focus on it. An example relating to education is how we’ve shifted views on punishment; it was a stick, then detentions, then exclusion…
[Divergent conversation about the failure to correctly predict overpopulation – they just extrapolated – AG argues it was not a failed forecast, just bad forecasting - a failed forecast is interlocked bad assumptions. There was a discussion whether carbon credits will have the same results.]

E. Question all assumptions/Test lists
Note: This stage might highlight the need for more research or stakeholder engagement.
The goal is to end up with two lists that rank for importance. One is about predetermined things – things that we are sure about for our purposes – note that we may, or may not, need to talk about them. Then there are uncertainties (anything we can’t clarify with further research). They are sometimes called “strategic uncertainties”.

F. Create scenarios
These lists form basis of scenarios, they allow us to try out alternate resolutions of the unknowns. AG hates the 2 by 2 matrix approach (from Boston management), but it is sometimes a useful tool. Shell use a fork in the road approach, or possibly a roundabout, where there are clear alternatives. For example, they know sustainability will happen but they have various scenarios predicting the demand for resources. [RS comments that Shell also have a trilemma approach, so deal with three worries.]
More generally scenarios are structured round uncertainties. The van der Heijden approach is to list things and tell stories – NEEDS creative facilitators. He has a pack of cards which people develop stories around. Each group is given part of the puzzle to resolve. Basically you need judgement to choose how.
The groups then write stories and the facilitator ensures the scenarios cover the cone of plausible uncertainties. Note there must be multiple scenarios, a single story is not helpful.
The creation of scenarios will take a minimum of 2 days to talk through, write, draw or tell.

Note: Jump scenarios are conversations over a day. There is no learning journey and it’s hard work for the facilitator. The result is paragraphs rather than stories. These are good for management to emphasis the alternatives and broaden thinking

G. Check and test scenarios
Vital outside people criticise. What could and would work? This stakeholder analysis is meant to be a practical exercise.

H. Put them out
Visioning scenarios (including preferred outcome) get published, they need to get folks on board. Business ones tend to be more internal.
Then test existing strategic agenda within scenarios. They’re a test bed for strategy and choices. How would things work?
Or backcast using the scenarios – so how to reach or avoid scenarios.
AG keen to promote that there needs to be standards, just like testing a pram, you need to exhaust all the things that could happen before it gets its kite mark.
[There was a conversational aside over the time spent on this. AG worried not enough time spent using them and that politics will block change – “if broke don’t fix it”. People need to be desperate to be receptive.]

3. Do you use any tools for scenario planning? If so, can you briefly describe them?

Classic management tools – so getting people to communicate, being experienced based.

4. Are any of those tools online?

Nothing practical is online but there are resources and case studies (see his website). Although then amended that can do Delphi online. Note that learning journey is not market research, not supposed to be investigating people’s mental models – “good foresight is not predictive”.

5. What scenario planning tools would you ideally like to have available?

Something that follows stages explaining steps, timelines, who’s involved, explaining predetermined and uncertainties when listing – basically scaffolding.

6. If time was restricted for a scenario planning exercise, which parts would you keep because they’re the most important?

Would go through all stages (tick all boxes) but go lightly on some. However the less knowledge bought in the more focus on facilitation. The key is to get people to develop interesting motivating diverse stories appropriate to their needs.

7. What tools or approach would you recommend if a non-expert wanted to do scenario planning?

When asked AG said that don’t need a facilitator but would do better if had one. They focus the time and can support the whole process – not just when in workshops. Those involved aren’t experts and have a stake in the present so they’re going to struggle to change their minds.

When asked if it could be done alone AG said yes, BUT that it would be better if one could do at least step G, testing scenarios, with others.

Learning journeys: conducting reconnaissance into the future

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 18, 2008 in 2015, 2025, all, foresight tools & methods, horizon scanning, strategic foresight, trend tracking

More on the Media Futures Conference – having yesterday got sidetracked into pushing back at misconceptions about citizen journalism (based on lousy forecast filtering) – now I’m actually getting to what I intended to talk about…

Early in the day, as a warmup I think (but for me this was the juice) there was a “Research in the Real World” section. It started with a presentation by Alex McKie reporting on a tour she made across the UK, where she interviewed people asking them what their “three wishes for the future” were. This was followed by Gill Wildman and Nick Durrant of Plot, who presented interviews where consumers were asked where and how they used media, and what they wanted from it.

The research is anthropological, no more or less than a customized field trip: going out, seeing what people do, and how they live, and what’s important and meaningful to them – and then thinking how one’s own area of interest (e.g. product) fits into this, or could fit into it in the future. That gives some clues as to what people will adopt and/or buy – what the market will “pull”.

The futures field lingo for this type of work is “a learning journey,” a process usually omitted in the helter-skelter of tracking new technology capabilities and other apparently more profitable lines of research. There are some good writeups of future learning journeys: one that comes to mind is “The Moen Story” Johnston, R. & Douglas Bate, J., The Power of Strategy Innovation, Amacom Press, 2003, Chapter 5. Another is “Conduct Reconnaissance into the Future,” Sull, D & Wang Y, Made in China, Chapter 3, HBS Press, 2005. I recently saw that Christus CEO Tom Royer said his medical institution had conducted learning journeys (to Canada and India) as part of its Futures Task Force II scenario building process.

Tuning in
No question this type of research is often tedious. You have everyday people umming and aahing inarticulately and often unimaginatively about their preferences and problems, and hopes for the future. In fact the conference audience were impatient about having been presented with the interviews in raw form. But it is precisely in the careful listening that much about the real future is revealed. It is a vital ingredient in thinking about the future, and reigning in poor forecasts.

In the event, the consumers (in Plot’s terms “the people formerly known as … users”) were revealed as media wise, but often their savvy to screen out the information firehose. Although media types were thinking about the cutting edge, real people were articulating the need to be informed in a way they could manage – not too much or too little – and to be able to trust the news source, and be exposed to stories that move or inspire them.

Learning journeys are a very dependable way to think about the future by checking our industry insider preferences against the preferences of real people out there. Any prediction that makes assumptions about the market without this perspective is heading for failure. But there is a wrinkle, and it is this: market research – even this deep market field trip research which is much better than focus groups – is seldom enough to adequately anticipate the next new thing. It tells us what lab fantasies or executive business model fantasies will not fly. But it doesn’t help us make the jump either. Experience is that consumers want what they already have, maybe a bit better, maybe a bit cheaper. Market research did not see the Walkman. And as as Hal Sperling of Chrysler said: “In all the time we spent developing the Minivan, not once did we have a soccer mom come and ask us for one.”

Technologies change, but they don’t change themselves

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 15, 2008 in 2015, 2025, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, forecast filtering, horizon scanning, lifestyles & values, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, politics of the future, social change, strategic foresight, technology change, trend tracking

In planning seminars and discussions about the future, a key topic is inevitably “technology change.” Participants will turn to each other, or perhaps to industry research or techno-tracking Web sites or “technology roadmaps” to consider technology changes in their industry and in the world at large, and how this may change the future.

So far so good. Tracking technology change is an important stage in scanning the external environment and anticipating sources or change and/or disruption. But no technology ever changed itself. History is littered with fabulous mind-bending, world-changing technologies that didn’t make it out of the lab. In fact, technologies only change because humans or human institutions want them to change AND (two separate hurdles here) they allow them to change.

Most people, most of the time, want technologies to change because they change for the better, improving products and services and/or making them cheaper. Companies want new technologies because improvements offer new sales options and (sometimes) industry competitive advantage, among other things. Societies express the desire for technology to go forward by stimulating and facilitating change in many ways (for example through government or industry funding of R&D or protecting intellectual property or making capital markets more transparent.)

Technology filtered by human choice
Once a technology breakthrough emerges, that’s hardly the end of the story. In fact it is still very much the beginning. New technologies of any importance are subject to public scrutiny and choices. Individually, or as a society, we ask ourselves, is this technology good for us? Debates happen, and power and politics and regulation takes its course, but one way or another technologies that most people like – mobile phone’s for example – will go forward while technologies such as GMOs will stall. Also, in a market economy, technologies are inescapably subject to consumer economics: those that raise user benefit (pass a buyer;s cost-benefit analysis) will be adopted. Those that don’t sit in the lab.

In other words, technology possibility is a matter of science and engineering, and the possibility frontier is expanding all the time, but the road from possibility to actuality is the rocky road of human ideas, preferences, and choices. Technology change means technology adoption, that is, it is a form of social change.

Why is this distinction important? Because one of the main reasons forecast fail is they see the technology possibility frontier as the future, underestimating the forces of social triage. There are two sites that I love that illustrate this wonderfully. Check out Paleo-Future (A Look into the Future that Never Was) and Modern Mechanics (Yesterday’s Tomorrow Today). Both are crammed with failed forecasts of this type. This is not to say that we cannot forecast usefully – much more to come on this in this journal – but it does give us pause in viewing many of today’s techno-inspired forecasts which make the same type of error. (Pics credit to the sites mentioned.)

Future Savvy: What’s Under the Hood

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 9, 2008 in 2015, 2025, all, decision-making, failed predictions, forecast filtering, foresight tools & methods, Future Savvy, horizon scanning, leadership, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, scenario planning, strategic foresight, strategic planning, systems dynamics, technology change, trend tracking

The book Future Savvy shows readers how to critically judge forecasts for themselves. These are the chapters that take the reader there:

Chapter 1: Recognizing Forecast Intentions, deals with considerations of how forecasts come about, who makes them, and with what intention. Those who research and produce forecasts, those who invest in understanding trends and drivers of change, and those (including the media) who bring the forecasts and their implications to our attention, inevitably have reasons for doing so – to benefit from the knowledge by seizing opportunities or avoiding threats or by affecting outcomes in the world. Understanding a forecast’s “return on investment” gives us an important vantage point in assessing the merits of a forecast.

Chapter 2: The Quality of Information, shows how a forecast communicates information between forecaster and reader subject to the same standards of accuracy, truth-telling, and bias-control by which one would judge any communication. Forecasts can be very different in methods and goals, but all forecasts lay claim to factual truth, particularly truth in the data, and the argument deals with the various ways in which data can be less solid than it looks, even with the best intentions.

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Bias, considers how data – whether good or bad in itself – can be interpreted or misinterpreted in forecasting, that is, the “political” aspects of forecasting. Just as there is no value-free look at history, so too there is no value-free look to the future and asking the right questions allows us be ready to mentally rebalance forecasts that are presented.

Chapter 4: Paradigms and Perception, investigates how predictive statements are exposed to a broader form of interpretive bias that has to do with the forecaster’s mental model or “paradigm,” and the “zeitgeist” (spirit of the times) when the forecast is made. This chapter investigates situations where forecast failure is caused by failure to escape society’s current mental models – which often do not hold through the forecast period.

Chapter 5: The Utility Principle, considers economic and market forces, and the role of consumers, in promoting or resisting the future. Without reigning in creative thinking, some simple economic filters inevitably apply direction or timing realism to futurist flights of fancy.

Chapter 6: Drivers, Blockers, and Trends, consider drivers and blockers of change, and how viewing these dynamics improves forecast assessment. It identifies the roles of Drivers, Enablers, Friction, and Blockers acting on events to cause change or resist it, and problems in dumbly projecting current trends.

Chapter 7: The Limits of Quantitative Analysis, discusses the role of statistical analysis and quantitative modeling in predicting the future – where this is possible and useful and where it is not, and why not.

Chapter 8: The Systems Perspective, investigates “system effects,” which occur whenever different elements or variables that may appear isolated are in fact linked together, such that changes in one element cause changes in others. Anticipating future behavior of any variable hinges on identifying the broader systemic elements influencing it and failing to do this is a big part of what causes forecasts to fail.

Chapter 9: Living with Alternative Futures, investigates non-predictive ways of approaching change – where the tone is more about managing uncertainty than predicting the future. It acknowledges unfathomable complexity of most future questions and provides perspectives that raise chances of success in an inherently unpredictable future.

Chapter 10: Forecast Filtering in Action, illustrates the processes of the book by applying them in case studies to real-world sample forecasts that decision makers in business and policy areas might find themselves interacting with. This demonstrates how real everyday predictive material may be probed and critically evaluated, following the principles developed in previous chapters.

Chapter 11: A Forecast Filtering Checklist, is a cross-cutting checklist which summarizes the principles of the book in one convenient, thematic list.