Future Savvy: Quality in Foresight

Listening to the radio this morning there was a review that quoted a news room adage — one that I am indeed old enough to remember from my days as a newspaper reporter — which is: “if it bleeds, it leads.”

That is: disaster, mayhem, and death goes to the top of the page and towards the front of the newspaper.**

“If it bleeds, it leads” can be interpreted more or less narrowly. Mostly it means, literally, that accidents, explosions, injuries, and deaths will take page priority in the news over “talking stories” about politics and government and society. Disasters sell more newspapers than policy debates. But more generally it means bad news is more arresting and interesting, and will get more attention (and, again, sell more newspapers or gather more listeners and viewers) than good news, therefore it takes priority.

Now, if you were a ‘forecasting pundit’ or a think tank, or investment institution with an interest in getting media attention for yourself, which route would you choose in garnering media exposure? Good news or bad news?

Bad news. Of course. Russian Professor Igor Panarin gets an insane amount of publicity because his book claims that the United States could collapse soon (in two months time, I believe.) Ditto asset manager, Egon von Greyerz, who bangs on, for example saying: “America is hemorrhaging financially and economically. Other countries now realize they hold ‘worthless’ US dollars” in a piece called: The Dark Years Are Here. And just in case you think these are all gloomy foreigners, consider how Bronx boy, Gerald Celente, has dominated media coverage in the credit-crunch era predicting doom-and-gloom in every way, including riots and revolution on U.S. streeets within in the Obama-presidency term. For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg

These are just three that I single out just to make the point, but they are not different from many hundreds that trawl for media attention by predicting, essentially … “bleeding.” In fact, the real future will have good and bad in balance, just like the past. One of the lessons of Future Savvy is: if a prediction bleeds, it probably shouldn’t lead your thinking.

** In fact, the task of deciding what story to lead page one (or any other page) with, and what other stories to run, in what order, and at what length, is one of the more intellectually demanding tasks around, and one that quality journalist take seriously. So, “if it bleeds, it leads” is, in part, cynical journalist-ese for saying that the popular audience doesn’t have the time, patience, or interest in the deeper issues.

Tweet This Post

In all the predictions of the future that I have ever read or heard, and all the scenarios I have been exposed to, it’s almost unheard of to see one that says “the squeezed middle class keeps their eye on a good deal, as they always have.”

I’m thinking about this as I see the Guardian today featuring a story about how “Poundland” has doubled it’s profits. Poundland is a copy-cat of the venerable US institution, the “dollar store,” where everything cost the same price, in this case £1.

Pic: Andrew Fox, The Guardian, August 4, 2009

The merchandising of these stores is not unsubtle. There are definite too-good-to-be-true loss leaders, but these more than offset by the many items that cost pennies wholesale. Fair enough. And recently reported doubling of profits is because more people are buying at these stores (downshifting) due to recessionarly squeeze and/or because of the current “sense of thrift” in the zeitgeist which makes pennywatching more “the done thing.”

But neither merchandising, nor consumer psychology is our primary concern here. From a foresight point of view, the point is that forecasts of 2010 that were around around a decade or two ago didn’t quite get around to saying anything about Poundstretcher leading a healthy economic life. It’s as unsexy as anything, compared to “peak oil” or advancing “singularity,” or nano-babble, and so on into the glorious future – or its polar alternative: crash & burn, soup kitchens, urban warlords rampaging, and so on.

But here we are coming to the end of the decade and a basic retailing gimmick for the squeezed middle-class consumer is well trafficked and very much part of the future. Yes, it’s success correlates with tougher times, but economic cycles will be with us repeatedly through the rest of the century and beyond.

This doesn’t mean there won’t be breakthroughs in technology or in consumer behavior. In fact, looking at the picture, one surely would not have got a pound for any amount of plain bottled water in a retail environment 20 years ago. Things do change. They just change slowly, or unevenly, against the gritty reality of savvy agregate choices made by a wary (global and growing) middle class.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

Samuel, L., Future: A Recent History, University of Texas Press, 2009

I recently received a copy of Future: A Recent History to review. True confession: what hit me first on picking up the book was (a) “wow, the title Future is not already taken!? And (b) what a fabulous job the University of Texas Press has done producing this book. It is beautifully designed, with an understated Art Deco motif, and carefully laid out with enough text on the page, on delightfully solid paper stock.
It may seem odd to go on about text on the page, but it’s much easier to read like an adult, in paragraphs. So many books, particularly business books, these days appear produced at 14-point, double spacing, like pre-school readers. Makes you wonder…

Anyway, author Larry Samuel’s project is to investigate the history of views of the future from 1920 to the present. (The book has an acknowledged US-centric focus, partially defended by the notion that future-mindedness is “a principle strand in America’s DNA.”) He organizes the book chronologically into six periods between then and now, and shows, with interesting examples, how each period had its own views of the future, and how the views shifted from period to period.

In tracing the history of “tommorowism,” in this way, Future is on a similar track to the classic book in this field: I.F. Clarke’s The Pattern of Expectation 1644-2001 (Jonathan Cape, 1979). It ultimately makes similar points, although Samuel’s argument is obviously drawn from more recent examples. As Samuel puts it: “A look back on how people looked forward reveals that while it possesses certain common themes … the future is not a fixed idea but a highly variable on that reflects the values of those who are imagining it.”

Happily I can say this chimes exactly with the argument of Future Savvy, particularly Chapter 4 “Zeitgeist & Perception,” where I argued how heavily the nature of the present and its topical issues frames how the future is seen (what is forecast, what is aspired to or feared, what counts as a valid method for thinking ahead, and so on). Which means the framing conditions of the present  should be carefully analyzed in assessing the validity of any future view.

Historiography

Historiography – investigating the meta-conditions surrounding what is recorded and how it is interpreted by historians – what counts as “history” and for whom –  is a well-understood part of doing good history. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent standard “futuriography” in the foresight field, despite it being absolutely fundamental to understanding the value of our own predictions as, similarly, highly determined by the epistemic configurations of their production. It is here that Samuel very competently fills a much needed gap.

The practical implication of this, which Future does not get into – it’s not that kind of book – is that to make better predictions (or make valid assessments of others’ predictions) we need to ask stiff questions as to how much of what we foresee is determined by the perspectives of today, and expect the answer to be “very much.” Understanding the limitations and biases of our own perspective is the sine-qua-non of a robust view of what tomorrow will actually bring.

Tweet This Post

A basic tool of foresight work is horizon scanning, that is, scanning for signals of change, early portent of trends, straws in the wind of change. Futurists do it habitually, and if not habitually then – the wisdom is – do it routinely by consciously scanning sources of information you don’t normally. Buying an agricultural weekly or teen idol rag at the airport, rather than your standard dose of the Economist.

It was in this spirit that I picked up the UK launch issue (aka May 2009) of Wired. Actually it’s not the first launch. Wired was in the UK ten years ago, but Condé Nast withdrew it in the dot.com crash. In the US at the time, I remember when Wired, the poster child of the Silicon Valley / Nasdaq bonanza, was almost as thick as a phone book each month. But those days were soon over.

Anyway, who could resist an offering that was about to tell me about my “Life in the future. “Fake Meat, Robots and Electro-Sex: the World is About to Change.” On the cover are, I kid you not, flying cars!

Now, I wouldn’t take this stuff seriously for a moment, if everyone else promised not to. But they don’t. So here we go. In the “What’s Next?” cover story 46 experts make 99 predictions about the next 40 years, and none of them will happen, or not in the time frame expressed.

Oh, moon settlement?

I shrink from sharing the list. Meal replacement patches, check. Moon settlement, check. The male pill, check. Every techno-fantasy of the jockish sci-fi world, check. Well, let’s stop on the male pill for a moment. Can we not do it? Sure we can do it – today. What’s stopping it is not technology. It is attitudes (machismo, essentially). So Wired experts are telling us that this will go away in a decade. Puh-leez.

I hardly need mention there’s no method given behind any of these expert forecasts.

Don’t you think Wired should be asking themselves why, in 2009, they are producing 186 pages of dead tree and carting it around the country in carbon-emitting trucks? Technology-vision may lead you to a view of the future. But it’s unreliable. The future is determined by what consumers are ready for. Well, that’s one of the 20-or-so key forecast filtering principles of Future Savvy.

Perhaps we should look at the cover story for what it is really about – which is selling magazines. Because, there’s no doubt that tech is changing, and many new capabilities are coming on stream, and this is very, very fascinating to imagine uses for. And this fascination is what Wired packages and sells. Don’t bet any money on the predictions though, certainly not their timeline.

But sturdy in some areas

Aside from the predicting lark, it’s a good magazine of its kind. The features are well-conceived, well-written, for example, one about how the BBC iPlayer business was built; a feature on sea salvage; a profile of PayPal founder Elon Musk; the David X Li formula and how it mis-calculated risk, and so on. Great stuff. Actually quite a sturdy business-oriented-view of techno-change, if you can get past the boys-with-toys riff of the magazine as a whole.

So, actually, much to like. Just, please, don’t think a lad’s mag is going to tell you anything coherent about the future.

Tweet This Post

All crises of the present can be viewed as a failure of foresight or planning at some previous point, and the current global economic crisis is no different.

The mood is justly sombre at the World Economic Forum’s Davos meeting this year, as grim-faced world leaders mull over the dismal state of the global economy and how to fix it. This is in marked contrast to recent years, when the top executives were warmly congratulating themselves on the general state of things.

In one sense this is perfectly understandable. The crisis is upon us and leaders should be directly and practically involved in tackling it. On another level it’s profoundly disturbing, because world leaders and senior managers should be doing more than merely responding to situations. When crises occur, crisis management becomes part of a leader’s job, but their real job is thinking ahead effectively to avoid crises and, on the positive side, develop opportunities.

Put another way: the heads of a companies or countries – Davos-level people – are tasked far beyond effective daily management. They are tasked, fundamentally, with negotiating the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world on behalf of the rest of us. If not them, then who?

This requires foresight and vision. In this sense, many who are at Davos this week are responsible for the current crisis. They failed to foresee it, in fact they generally endorsed the growth of complex financial instruments, the shadow banking system, and private equity growth –- much of which bypassed SEC or equivalent regulation, and which is now seen to be the root cause of the meltdown.

In fact much of the “new finance” system was thought to spread and therefore actually lower risk. Turns out that was a poor view of the future. In fact the present situation as a whole is the result of key decision-makers operating on a poor view of future. As a group, their mental model was not open to bad outcomes, or even just alternative outcomes to what was commonly expected.

Could we have thunk it?

Their response might be: “nobody can predict the future!” “Easy to say after the event!” This is true. But it’s common knowledge that there were those who foresaw the mess — The Times identified at least 10. As Davos attendees might now be forced to agree, some forecasts are clearly better than others.

This is where executive leaders can learn from the foresight field and particularly the history of failed predictions. Everyone relies on predictions for their guide to the future – nobody can be an expert in every field. And there’s never a shortage of them – they are frequently published in the media, offered by consultancies and think tanks, and are a key part of Davos.

While getting a prediction is easy, the key leadership skill is to be able to tell a good one from a bad one: that’s what turns a forecast into a strategic resource. That is what leads to better decisions, better plans, and better actions.

Can one do that? Can one critically assess a particular or consensus-held view of the future, to identify its strengths and weaknesses? Absolutely yes. Among the tests one can run on a prediction are:

•    assessing motivation – who is speaking and what their agenda might be, particularly if they have an interest in maintaining a current system or shaping the emergence of a new one
•    determining whether the tools used are appropriate to the level and type of uncertainty faced. High-uncertainty situations and long-term views require different approaches to standard modeling
•    questioning consensus mental-models and forcing consideration of alternative outcomes. All foresight is swayed by “zeitgeist” – spirit of the times – and good forecasts swim against this tide.

These are just a few among the many forecast tests one can run, as detailed in Future Savvy.  But even if Davos attendees had been applying just these three in previous years, their foresight would have been greatly improved. It won’t help with this crisis, but it might forestall the next.

* This article, authored by Adam Gordon, was first edited and published by Bnet.co.uk

Tweet This Post

Happy New Year! Well, this time of year traditionally brings out the “January 1 quarterbacks,” poking fun at the wrong predictions for the year just past, awarding dunce caps, particularly (deliciously) to famous people.

This punditry is widely read, and sometimes published in respectable places. Some of it is just year-end fun, and nothing wrong with that. But there is also a failed-forecast “nyah-nyah” that is corrosive to the foresight field in general, which demands answers. So at the risk of giving the 20/20 hindsight artists undue oxygen of attention, here are a few thoughts:

Consider Foreign Policy’s “10 Worst Predictions for 2008.” (Dec, 2008). Highlights include:

“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006

“Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?’ No! No! No! Bear Stearns is fine! Do not take your money out … —Jim Cramer, responding to a viewer’s e-mail on CNBC’s Mad Money, March 11, 2008 [Bear Stearns was sold to J.P. Morgan Chase at about a 90% discount to it market capitalization at the time of the forecast]

“The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months.” —Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs oil analyst, in a May 5, 2008, report [Oil was then around $130 a barrel. By late December it was below $40.]

Or this one from Business Week’s list of 10 (December 24, 2008)

“Existing-Home Sales to Trend Up in 2008″ —Headline of a National Association of Realtors press release, Dec. 9, 2007 [On Dec. 23, 2008, the group said November sales were running at an annual rate of 4.5 million—down 11% from a year earlier—in the worst housing slump since the Depression.]

The Future Savvy question is: how should we think about predictions like this? And how should we think about failed-forecast spotting?

1. Failed-forecast spotting is not remotely “scientific”
This should be obvious, but somehow never is. Purposefully extracting the failed forecasts from the total set of forecasts says nothing about the quality of the set in general. Many did predict Obama; did predict the downturn, etc.

2. Failed-forecast spotting raises a healthy skepticism, but runs to nihilism
Despite not passing any credible test of knowledge, at least failed-forecast spotting stokes apprehension about forecasts and the wisdom of experts. At base this is healthy. Prediction is hard, and it is mostly done poorly. And experts often transgress the boundaries of their expertise. (Typically, in this instance, they know a lot about their field, but often don’t know more than the next Joe about the future of their field, often because their expertise is wedded to existing practices and assumptions.)
Prediction skepticism is fine. What happens, however, is that tempts a “nobody can predict anything” nihilism. This is its own failing because many predictions are in fact excellent, producing good foresight, which is a key strategic and competitive advantage.

3. Often the short term future is harder to see.
This is the trickiest insight of the lot. As everyone knows, it’s impossible to accurately predict the future (which is not the same as usefully predict the future, see arguments in other posts). The world is just too complex, too chaotic. But there’s a wrinkle. It should be that the further we look into the future the harder it is to see. The world will change more – there is more time for unpredictable things to happen. The short-term future (one year, say) is closer to us, it should be more like today and we should be able to anticipate it better.

In fact, short-term foresight is the most impossible task: a casino game. In the longer term (10-20 years, say) strong trends can be relied on to have had their impact. For example, the move away from fossil fuels, or effective nanotechnology engineering, or simple domestic robotics, can be reliably forecast. But while the sweep of these and other similar evolutions are reliable over time, the short-term picture will suffer lags or reversals that follow no pattern at all. (It’s no accident that is this is just like the stock market. In the long term the market will go up, in the short term it can go anywhere.) Also short-term predictive failure is compounded by the fact that the standard to which it is held is higher – we expect specifics: dates, places, numbers, players, winners – that are not demanded of a long-term view. In other words, near-term predictions are all about “point forecasts,” and there’s nothing more impossible than a point forecast unless you believe in tea leaves and crystal balls.

The take away: short-term point forecasts really are a mugs game and the skeptics are right. Medium-long forecasts, when well done, are worthy of our strategic and competitive attention.

Tweet This Post