I’m going back to the S+B interview with Lawrence Burns, former GM head of R&D, cited in my previous post, because there is more to be had in understanding how systems dynamics has shaped and will shape the future of the automobile industry.

This not only helps us think about automobiles, energy, public transport, and so on, but also about foresight in all industries.

Asked about the likelihood of “transformational” change in the auto industry—given the historical pattern of slow, incremental change we have seen for decades—Burns says:

“The main reason upheavals haven’t happened is that the automobile transportation system benefited from a tremendous self-reinforcing dynamic: the codependence between the roadway infrastructure, the energy infrastructure, and the machines that we created.”

In other words, systems dynamics were at work, in this case dominated by a deeply powerful reinforcing loop:

“As cars became available in the early 1900s, you needed to build roads suitable for them, and the costs of the roads were paid with gasoline taxes… As more cars were manufactured, more gasoline was consumed; the more gasoline was consumed, the more roads were built. The more roads were built, the more valuable a car became. And as cars became more valuable, it led to more cars being bought… Next thing, you wake up and in the United States you have 250 million cars, and they travel on 4 million miles of road, 3 trillion miles a year…

“So we thought about a new DNA for the automobile, but you couldn’t create that just for the car itself. It has to operate within a new codependent system.”

Too smart to crash

What drives this new system, is of course the core of the debate. In Burns’ view the key issue is vehicles will become “too smart to crash,” allowing them to be built without current safety defences, that is, 75 percent lighter, which drastically reduces energy requirements.

“The problem with batteries today isn’t really the batteries themselves; the problem is the vehicle that we’re putting them in. To power a typical car today, you need a battery the size of one or two Sumo wrestlers, and it takes eight hours to recharge, so you need charging stations in garages or on the street. For the 750-pound class of vehicles that we envision, the battery could someday become small enough so that you could easily bring it into your house or apartment to recharge, and it would recharge in just three hours.”

Everything rests on the assumption of whether “too smart to crash” is possible, and the secondary assumption whether consumers will ever really trust this. The former is surely sound, the latter questionable.

But, no matter. At least this view of the automobile industry evolution, or indeed revolution, is in clear acknowledgement that one will not see the future of the auto industry by looking through the lens of a single issue such as global warming, or any single propulsion or other technology.

The car is inextricably tied to the deeper systems it is part of. Any transformational future proposed or envisaged—whether that of Burns, or environmental lobbyists, or public transport evangelists, or any other—has to show how the whole current reinforcing system behind the car is overcome, that is bettered for most consumers and stakeholders, by a new system.

First posted at Forbes Leadership: http://blogs.forbes.com/adamgordon

.

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

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

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

The resulting curve looks something like this:

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

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

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.

Picture: londonfashionweek.co.uk

London Fashion Week, the UK’s slice of the $300-billion global fashion industry, starts today with flash of couture, whirring of camera and, no doubt, glug of Veuve-Cliquot. All the sass and celebrity pizzaz, and the actual catwalk schedule, can be found at londonfashionweek.co.uk

So… it’s teen giraffes tottering around in outrageous stuff, the watered down version of which will be pumped through the supply chain until it appears at your local department store in six-to-nine months. Same as it ever was, right?

In fact, not really. One of the gathering trends of the current era, across many industries, is the empowerment of consumers as ‘taste-makers,’ circumventing designers and specialist advisers. This is currently putting fashion executives through the wringer as “who decides” what is good, what is made and marketed, is being wrested from the fashion elite and from fashion intermediaries (glossy magazines like Vogue and Elle) by the “woman-in-the-street.”

The industry’s longstanding top-down orientation — where “we” told “you” what next year’s ‘look’ will be — is cracking as consumers who can easily access, share, and discuss every fashion preference, including their own, now get ‘networked affirmation’ rather than affirmation from the top.

Internet and mobile communications, and social networking technologies are behind this, of course. Access to style and fashion advice now comes anywhere, anytime. The stuffy catwalk shows are not open to the public (ah, the whiff of elitism still breathes for now,) but as a recent story in the LA Times points out: “Images can be seen online minutes after a designer shows them… The Internet makes it possible not only to read about fashion but to participate in it. The use of sites that enable users to create their own fashion-spreads, share photos of themselves in different outfits and elicit wardrobe advice from their peers is skyrocketing.”

The news for elite arbiters of taste in every industry in the 21st Century: it’s game-over. You will have to participate with your customers in their socially-networked formation of perceptions and opinions, a process you will be able to sometimes lead, but more often have to follow.

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.

Peter Bernstein, the author of “Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk,” died recently at the age of 90. In memoriam McKinsey Quarterly reposted this recent Bernstein interview. I put it up here because it’s a timely and timeless lesson in thinking about uncertainty and threats, and avoiding simplistic (quantitative) approaches to managing them – one of core themes of “Future Savvy.” Bernstein offers and endorsement of real options and explains why sophisticated Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) mathematical models to control risk created “a math dependency” that was blind to, among other things, unexpected systemic feedback to its own emergence:

One of the first things Bernstein says is that risk implies that we don’t know what will happen, which could be good things happening too. Risk management, as it is currently understood, gets executives to look at what could go wrong in the uncertain future of the enterprise. (Somehow threats are easier than opportunties to get departmental budget for.) The standard approach is to break risks down into commonly understood threat categories: a typical analysis would illuminated risks posed by technology failure, communications failure, security failure, natural disasters, accidents, or market/reputation risk, liability risk, financial/credit risk, and so on. This negative-outcome identification is typically followed by strategies to monitor, minimize, or control the risk event or its impact.

Doing all this is great, BUT it is just a narrow part of enterprise and industry foresight. Why? First, industry foresight or futures studies for business is focused as much on the opportunities change offers as on threats. Second, foresight tools (when correctly applied) set themselves the task of enlarging perspectives or mental maps so that we can see more things, or more possibilities than the generally expected set (whether good or bad). Set against this, risk management is little more than the catalog of known threats. The unknown or poorly understood threat, or unseen opportunity missed (and grabbed by others) is likely to be more damaging to the enterprise.

They have a bit of the fashionable “SunTzu Art of War” feel to them, and some of the quotes may be apocryphal. But no matter. What’s really interesting in this very savvy list is how customer-focused the lessons are. As said in Future Savvy, and one can’t say it too many times, what customers (users, the public) want and the cost-benefit tradeoffs they will make is a MUCH more reliable guide to the future than any techno-fantasy.

The wisdoms also reflect a foresight industry insider truism and paradox: you seldom get to the future by asking the customer directly (e.g. in a focus group) what they would like to have. You have to leap for the customer (and use focus groups only to refine new offerings.)

The list:

“1. St Augustine said that it is a blessing from God that we can’t predict the future. If we predict prosperity, we will become complacent. If we predict evil, we will lose the ability to discriminate.

2 Sharp President Haruo Tsuji: ‘You cannot find out what the consumer wants only by doing market research. You need to pull the ideas out of your brain. Manufacturers of the future should not simply respond to market demands, they must create market demands.’

3. Konosuke Matsushita said: ‘Don’t try to fit your business to a forecast. Fit it to the needs of your customers.’

4. Toshiba President Sugiichio Watari: ‘Money doesn’t come falling into the headquarters of Toshiba. If you want money you need to go to the customers.’

5. President Yoshio Tateishi of Omron: ‘Learn from your customers. If you learn from internal resources you will become self-satisfied. If you learn from your competitors you will fall far behind.’

6. Professor Yoshiya Teramoto of Meiji Gakuin University: ‘When companies start a big market research project, it is one sign of the ‘big company’ disease.’

7. Tsuyoshi Kawanishi: ‘The way to predict the weather is to look at the sky. And, every once in a while, you can make your prediction by simply thinking.’

8. President Haruo Tsuji of Sharp says: ‘Don’t be a spider, be a honey bee.’

9. Takeshi Kaneda, a management critic, says: ‘After elaborate research to find out what the consumer wants, Ford produced the Edsel. It was a complete failure. Ford mistook what the customer wanted for what they would really buy. They ignored their insight and relied on consensus. Japanese tend to emphasize harmony and consensus. But insight and decisiveness can be more important.’

10. Someone says: ‘Figures do not lie. But liars often use figures.’”

Amazon the new Wal-Mart? pic:Huffington Post

According to yesterday’s LA Times Amazon says the whole thing was a cataloging error. But when author Mark Probst had previously contacted Amazon for an explanation, he got this: “In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists.”

Aside: Everyone is trying to figure out what Twitter is good for, or how it will be used, and it has become clear that one application is to quickly aggregate mass protest, evidenced in the anti-Amazon outrage, see Twitter “Amazonfail.”

Author Maya Reynolds has been connecting the dots in the future of publishing, watching Amazon move via acquisitions such as Abe Books, Audible, BookFinder, BookSurge, Brilliance Audio, FillZ, GoJaba, Library Thing, Mobipocket and Shelfari.

She is among various industry watchers who claim, with fair evidence, that Amazon is following a “Wal-Mart” strategy – the well-documented essence of which is to gain enough retailer power to be able to pressure suppliers (telling them what to make or what to charge, or exacting special discounts) to achieve better retail prices and get more retailer power, in a reinforcing spiral which, inter alia, squeezes all the healthy mom-’n-pop-shop diversity and other balances of power out of the industry.

In a post of July 08 she paints the full dystopia scenario:
“1. First, the smaller presses, POD presses and e-publishers will disappear as Amazon’s margins squeeze them out of business. Amazon will help the process along by offering better terms to authors if they will use BookSurge’s POD press and Kindle’s e-book to publish. Even if authors don’t embrace Amazon initially, as their publishers go out of business, they will be forced to do so.
“2. Brick-and-mortar stores have two constraints which Amazon does not: (1) limited shelf space and (2) a limited geographic range. Bookstores carry books “on spec,” filling their shelves with stock they hope readers will seek. Amazon, on the other hand, has unlimited virtual shelf space and unlimited geographic reach. Amazon does not have to warehouse stock. They can wait until a book is actually ordered and the money is in hand before using a digital file and BookSurge to print the book. Because they cannot match the deep discounts Amazon offers, bricks-and-mortar bookstores–already under siege–will be squeezed out of existence.
“3. Like Wal-Mart, Amazon will continue to apply pressure on publishers to give more favorable terms. Wal-Mart’s suppliers used cheaper materials and out-sourced to cheaper overseas labor. As the publishing houses’ profit margins are squeezed, their cost-cutting efforts will take three directions: (1) Focus even more attention on signing best-selling authors whose work is guaranteed to sell; (2) Begin to pressure their mid-list authors to accept lower advances and lower royalty percentages; and (3) Sign fewer and fewer new authors because of the uncertainty and the expense of growing a new writer.

Where will they go?

“4. Mid-list authors and new authors, unable to either find a publisher or unwilling to accept the low royalties, will seek to self-publish. Where will they go? Since, by that time, most of the self-publishing houses will have gone out of business, they will go to Amazon’s BookSurge or to Amazon’s e-book division, Kindle. Amazon will welcome them.
“5. The next death on the food chain will be the publishers and agents themselves. First the mid-level publishers will die. Well-known agents and the larger houses will be protected for a period of time by their best-selling authors who are loyal to them. However, as those cash cows die off, so will the agents and larger houses. A new paradigm will emerge: Amazon as both publisher and retailer.
“6. Eventually Amazon will have so much power, they will be able to decide WHAT is worthy of being published. Welcome to the future of publishing.”

Is this the future of publishing? The logic of unregulated industry power suggests it is. But Future Savvy says response – regulation – is also likely. As with Microsoft and many before them, when Amazon gets too powerful, anti-trust regulators should be in business. But only if their hand is pushed. Articulate and persuasive dystopias such as Reynolds’ are the single most powerful mechanism by which the word is spread (spread it! forward it, tweet it!) so that enough consumers get to see and believe threatening future outcomes early enough, and pressure regulators to act.

Christian Blanckaert, Executive Vice President at Hermès International was quoted as saying: “We have absolutely no visibility into 2009!”

On the one hand, fair enough. This economic downturn is steeper than previous down cycles, and the basic viability of the financial sector has been tested. Access to credit is normally easier in a recession, but in this one it is not. All of which makes luxury spending harder to predict.

No doubt the most unlikely prediction of all would have been that Hermès, Burberry, LVMH, Moët Hennessy, Louis Vuitton, and PPR (Gucci , Yves Saint Laurent) have all recently reported better-than-expected results.

Nevertheless luxury industry leaders have declined to provide investors and analysts with any official outlook. What’s curious, from an industry foresight point of view, is how executives such as Blanckaert thought they really had more “visibility” into any previous year, or that they will somehow gain it again when the financial crisis is over. They will not. The world will continue to surprise them and us. What they will gain, certainly, is a greater likelihood that the standard business-as-usual future assumptions they make will not be upset by reality.

Meanwhile, judging by the conference, the luxury goods industry has a very decent grip on current social and moral trends, and clear insight into the bigger picture of change in its industry over the next five to ten years. As they know from before, what happens in a recession is that luxury goes out of fashion. Conspicuous consumption wanes, or retreats further behind secluded walls. This is a basic pendulum swing that tracks the economy (witness how the early 1990s recession stimulated a return to “values” era after the “me, me, me” 1980s.)

Sustainable luxury

So we are again in a swing to modesty. But we also know that each swing of the pendulum also carries with it the specific issues of its time. Current key issues for consumers in this segment are sustainability, global warming, business ethics, and globalization (or fear thereof).

Therefore the luxury brands will be looking for ways of making, transporting, and displaying goods in an energy-efficient and socially conscious way, including a renewed emphasis on local artisans and traditional craftsmanship that speaks sustainability in both natural and human resources. This will be the basis of the “sustainable luxury,” positioning that the famous houses will define and compete in. Fabulous and renewable  – now there’s something you can charge top dollar for.

Guinness' view of the pub of 2259. Image credit: Chris Bainbridge

The Guinness Pub-of-the-Future is a St. Patrick’s day (March 17) promotion. Nothing wrong with a little bit of fantasy foresight. But what they come up is so “20th-century-futurism” it’s hilarious. Among various reports on the project – for example in the Telegraph – the following features are foreseen:

- robotic doorman, greets you by name
- cash obsolete; orders via RFID; payments deducted automatically
- your product tailored to you on the spot
- touch-sensitive tables, send your order straight to the bar
- socializing via virtual / hologram technology
- a running tally of the number of units consumed.

Yawn. Even on it’s own terms (minimal constraints of realism) this is a totally derivative piece of foresight. These “innovations” are the staples of an infotech view of the future, and they have all been thought and spoken of countless times. Also many of the elements and services cited are already here, or not more than a decade away. What we have is the current pub assumptions + digital steriods, while the year 2259 will be, truly, another world.

The limits to growth
But all this leads us to more interesting industry foresight problem. Will there be pubs in even a generation, never mind 250 years? What the Telegraph dryly observes at the bottom of its report is that 39 pubs are closing every week Why? A number of driving forces are coming together:

First is strict drink-driving limits, which makes “the local” literally local or nothing. Second, pubs in the UK have traditionally been a refuge from housing that was poor and/or underheated. Unprecedented waves of affluence (credit-crunch notwithstanding) have led to widespread housing “do-ups.” It’s now a valid option for most people to spend their leisure time at home and entertain at home.

Then there’s the where’s-my-friend trend. You’re likely to go down the pub if your friends are there, but not if they are where most people’s friends are: on Facebook.

The social-legislative clock
Fourth, no matter how you dress it up, pubs are retail outlets. So, like all retail they are under the cosh in a Wal-mart / Tesco world. The price gap between store and pub has become too great for most consumers to cross with good conscience.

Which brings us to the current price-floor legislation bid. Alcohol is a huge social cost in terms of health care and violence. Drink costs the NHS £3bn a year, and the total price of alcohol to the taxpayer is estimated at five times that. Eventually these costs will become unjustifiable so, like smoking before it, the social-legislative clock is ticking for booze. As the 2-martini lunch has become the 2-seltzer lunch, the trend to social stigmatization is clear, and legislators will follow (not with Prohibition, but with a much more subtle community-endorsed squeeze).

Like the good politician he is, Gordon Brown won’t let his party get ahead of the trend. But the trend is clear and it bodes ill for pubs.

Conference: March 19-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the conundrums of foresight work is that it demands a macro-perspective, but real change requires focus. In order to get the breadth of view across society and technology to think adequately about the future, the futures analyst is forced to forgo much of the detail, while implementers are thinking: “this 40,000 ft view is very illuminating, but how do I land the plane?” What changes do I make, in my organization, in my industry, on Monday morning, and how do I not get fired for making them?

Kleiner’s updated The Age of Heretics, (2nd edition, Jossey-Bass, 2008) is the modern history of people who find themselves – or put themselves – on the focus side of foresight: who work practically on the ground inside corporate institutions to achieve change, which means by definition challenging the methods and perspectives of their institution. It is not the story of foresight at the lofty level of ideas, but the altogether grittier and more interesting story of how macro-change consciousness meets real institutions, real organizational dynamics, real industry pressures, and real career considerations, in the history of US corporations since 1945.

Kleiner, the editor-in-chief of Booz Allen’s Strategy+Business, is no stranger to the foresight field. He is the ghost-writer behind an eye-popping portion of the futures canon, including The Art of the Long View; The Fifth Discipline, and its Fieldbook; and The Living Company, and so on, (source: http://www.well.com/~art/) so it’s no surprise that the fabric of his text is lush in its familiarity with the players and ideas in the field.

The common thread he follows – through figures like Herman Kahn, Willis Harman, Amory Lovins, Oliver Markley, and so on, is that of the heretic, the maverick against the machine. Intriguingly, along the way, Kleiner gives us a worm’s-eye view of the genesis of many new management ideas, from “lean production” to the “balanced scorecard” to “scenario planning’ – showing how they emerge from and have been engendered by the forces of institutions in productive conflict with their heretics.

The political history of truth, and its future

Philosopher Michel Foucault catapulted our understanding of institutions as a political field, using insights from the history of prisons, hospitals, and asylums to show the relationship between power and knowledge in the evolution of institutional forms. But he never dealt with the modern business corporation. It may be overstating it, but not by much, to say that Kleiner updates Foucault for corporate America. The themes he carries: the role of the deviant, transgression, the evolution of truth, and discursive struggles between insiders and outsiders, are highly resonant. In his previous book, Who Really Matters (Doubleday, 2003) Kleiner developed other parts of this same perspective: showing how every organization’s identity and choices can be understood as driven by the interests of its core group – its powerful insiders.

The Age of Heretics is an engrossing history of change-agents in companies in strategic and organizational transformation. But it’s not just a history. In the future – while the names of the players, and their issues, and the institutions themselves will change, the productive articulation between the heretic and the institution will remain the format of change in big groups. So the lessons of the book are well taken and very highly recommended.

[This review, authored by Adam Gordon, first appeared in The Association of Professional Futurist's Compass Magazine]

Microsoft - Computer Electronics Show 2009

Product prototype communication is a close cousin of scenario building. Typically the company creates their product or service in action, in the future, being used by happy customers, their “preferred future” scenario. Prototype communication doesn’t typically build in alternative scenarios, the litmus test of strategy-based scenario work. It’s more a kite-flying exercise, designed to put out a future-oriented message to stakeholders and the public, garner broad feedback, and (if you’re powerful like Microsoft) put up “this-is-the-future-of-the-industry” markers.

Nevertheless, with the caveat that they are one among many plausible outcomes, product showcase scenarios can be an eye-opening guide to what’s actually possible and what the future will be like.

A newly released Microsoft “Future of Computing” video, showcased at CES 2009 in Las Vegas in the past few days, is an example. The 10-minute piece, presented by Janet Galore, Program Manger: Strategic Prototyping, takes us through a scenario of interactive education in the future (when, exactly, is not said but the implication is it’s not too far off) showing how participants would find, use, and share information across devices and across platforms.

What we see is a tablet PC that can communicate seamlessly with other electronics and interact with Web info on the fly. Okay nothing new there. What’s interesting is how it’s all held together by surface computing, a smart desk with a screen, which allows information to be viewed in the process of collaboration, sharing, and filing.  In some futurist fantasies it is thought that communication is ideally invisible (my phone e-handshakes your phone without me doing anything, etc.) But actually humans mostly seem to prefer to see what’s happening, and to have the choice to interact with what is happening while it’s happening – not least so they know what machines have done and don’t have to pull their hair out before they find their precious work buried four subdirectories into the Temp folder… sheesh. But I digress.

The scenario focuses on organizing and sharing multiple inputs, therein making a pretty clear statement about the future: what will be really valuable is not access to information anywhere, anytime (an assumed, table-stakes factor), but a way to share and collaborate with the information in an productive way. It refreshingly assumes that whiz-bang graphics – they are there too – are the easy stuff, but that collaboration and teamwork are the hard things to get right, and the truly valuable service given the chaos of billions of voices and trillions of data objects that pertain in any human-work future.

The other real strength of the prototype and related scenario is its close attention to natural (or, at least, strongly socialized, conventional, classic) human ways of doing things, which are slow to change, and therefore will change slowly. The smart desk is something one can really see oneself sitting around, because this is what we already do. Also this future of computing envisages no stylus, no mouse, no magic wand to master. Rather, we move digital stuff around the desk with our hands. We point to it and we shift it. That is, digital capability accommodates and interlaces with Stone Age human and organizational patterns. That’s why this view of the future is persuasive.

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.

Kelly needs no introduction. He’s the executive editor of Wired and a core who’s-who in the new media technology world. The first lesson he has to share is a key one: the Web is only about 5,000 days old – that’s about 13 years (the Internet, DARPA, etc., is older) – and all the stuff we have and now take for granted, from online investing to social networking to Wikipedia has happened in this short time.

The video is available here:

As Kelly says, and he’s undoubtedly right: “if I had predicted all this would be there (and free) nobody would have believed it. It’s impossible. The lesson is that very big changes do occur in fast-moving industries when considered over a decent-length (e.g. 10-15 year) timeframe. So let’s not kid ourselves: mere extrapolation of current trends doesn’t take us to the future. A leap – a paradigm shift – a willingness to anticipate fundamental shifts in technologies, institutions, and business models, is required.

So, against this, it is interesting that much of what Kelly predicts for the next 5,000 days of the Web is fairly conservative… but he does build in the idea of a new, fundamental shift.

The Web in 2020

What does he see coming in the next 5,000 days?

1. First thing is what Kelly calls “Embodiment” of the Web, by which he means that every device, every screen (laptop, phone, iPod, sat-nav, etc) becomes a “window into the machine” rather than a stand-alone device. There will be one Web, one machine, and everything will go through it. Part of this is that the Web will be embedded into the physical world – inanimate objects from cars to shoes to will have connectivity. Whether through RFID or other technologies, “there will be an Internet of things.”

Hello? We’ve heard this all before. Many times. In fact we were hearing it in the 90s. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact if we’ve been hearing it for so long, and the trend is still clearly in this direction, the forecast is probably right. What’s interesting is how non-radical it is.

2. Next he talks about “Restructuring” which is his term for the “Semantic Web” or what some call “Web 3.0” The idea is: first we linked computers (the Net), then we linked pages (the Web), and next we will link all the data or information or ideas anywhere on the Web to all relevant data /information/ ideas elsewhere on the Web. (This made possible by technologies such as XML, RSS, OWL, API, RDF)

One of the payoffs of this, says Kelly in an illuminating example, is that we won’t have to “re-friend” in each social networking platform. The technology will know we’re “friends” with Warren Buffet and Tom Peters and Malcolm Gladwell (…lol) as we move from Linked-In to Facebook to Technorati, and so on.

3. Kelly’s final point is that humans will be co-dependent with the Web. It will be always on, always there, ubiquitous, and the single fundamental tool we depend on to do everything.

Again, there’s nothing new in these points. It’s all been said before. In fact, as is often the case in good futures thinking, the value in Kelly’s forecast is that it is a carefully considered “cut” from what is usually forecast, leaving behind the wilder things that are said. Kelly on Web 2020 doesn’t say “expect digital human implants; ‘conscious’ devices; retina-as-screen,” and so on – the beam-me-up-Scotty kind of foresight that unfortunately often gets the headlines.

The next stage
Nevertheless, he is equally not saying the next 5,000 days will be “like the Web, only better.” The capabilities, the embodiment, the dependency, imply a new stage, he says. What that new stage will look like at the business and institutional level – what products/services/delivery will be possible via Web 3.0 – what the Yahoo or Google or Facebook or similar iconic institutions will there be, Kelly does not get into.

Fully thinking through the next 5,000 days of the Web involves going from the capabilities to what is built on them. But all in all this is a classy, integrated piece of future thinking (that easily fulfills the Questions to Ask of any Forecast checklist in Chapter 11 of “Future Savvy”) and is a solid foundation on which to consider future business and organizational implications.

Future Savvy is intended to be a book for business and policy professionals, not academics. But it does speak to students and scholars who need to assess and evaluate foresight work. In any event, professors Jay Gary and Dennis Walters have included it alongside works by Wendel Bell, Jerome Glenn, and Ted Gordon (no relation) — household names in the foresight field — so the comparison is of course very happily accepted.

The following is from the course outline. I’ve included the full bibliography, which is in itself a valuable collection of sources in the futures field, and merits attention all the way down the list.

Course Description:
Surveys traditional forecasting theory and methods. After a consideration of forecasting in general, students learn how to conduct research using both qualitative (secondary sources, interviews and questionnaires) and quantitative (data analysis, numerical forecasting and trend decomposition). They also apply critical thinking skills to existing forecasts. [Learning objectives:] 1. Managing: understand the principles and applications of operational forecasting within organizations. 2. Assessing: decide when to use statistical or judgmental methods in strategic forecasting, and how to combine foresight methods to generate 10 to 20 year outlooks. 3. Evaluating: gather information in a specific domain that can be used to forecast baseline as well as alternative futures. 4. Researching: construct a long-term strategic forecast for a client organization that draws upon both quantitative and qualitative sources.

Required Resources
* Bell, Wendell. 1996. Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge. (Human Science for a New Era), vol. 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. ISBN: 0765805391
* Carlberg, C. G. (2005). Excel sales forecasting for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN: 0764575937
* Glenn, J. C., and Gordon, T. J. Futures Research Methodology V2.0 CD-ROM American Council for the UNU. ISBN: 097220511X
[This item is available through http://www.acunu.org/millennium/FRM-v2.html]
* Gordon, A. (2009). Future Savvy: Identifying trends to make better decisions, manage uncertainty, and profit from change. New York: American Management Association. ISBN: 0-8144-0912-1
* Jain, C. L. ed. (2001). Practical guide to business forecasting. Flushing, NY: Graceway. ISBN: 092126758

Recommended and supplemental resources:
*  Coates , Joseph F 2025, John B. Mahaffie, and Andy Hines. 2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology. Oak Hill Press. ISBN: 1886939098, also available in .pdf files via http://www.josephcoates.com/2025_PDF.html
* Armstrong, J. S. (1985). Long-range forecasting: From crystal ball to computer (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. ISBN: 0471823600, also available in .pdf files via http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Long-Range%20Forecasting/contents.html
* Armstrong, J. Scott. 2001. Principles of Forecasting . Kluwer. ISBN: 0792374010.
* Caplow, T., Hicks, L., & Wattenberg, B. J. (2001). The first measured century: An illustrated guide to trends in America , 1900-2000 . Washington , DC : AEI Press. Download chapters at: http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book.htm
* Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571-582.
* Duberley, J., & Johnson, P. (2000). Understanding management research: An introduction to epistemology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
* Einhorn, H.J. (1986). Accepting error to make less error. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 387-395.
* Fischoff, B. (1994). What forecasts (seem to) mean. International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 387-403.
* Gawiser, Sheldon R., and G. Evans Witt. 1994. A Journalist’s Guide to Public Opinion Polls . Praeger. ISBN: 0275949893.
* Gillham, Bill. 2000. The Research Interview. Continuum International. ISBN: 082644797X.
* Hetman, F. (1969). Le Langage de la prévision, the language of forecasting: With a French-English-German vocabulary. Paris: S.ÉD.ÉI.S. http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/eng/data/langageprevision.pdf
* Jantsch, E. (1967). Technological forecasting in perspective. Paris: OECD. http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/recherche/laboratoire/data/prevtech_en_final.pdf
* Makridakis, S. G., Wheelwright, S. C., & Hyndman, R. J. (1998). Forecasting: Methods and applications (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
* Molitor, G. T. (2003). The power to change the world: The art of forecasting. Potomac, MD: Public Policy Forecasting.
* Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T., Fox, C. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Positive illusions and forecasting errors in mutual fund investment decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 79, 95-114.
* Orrell, D. (2007). The future of everything: The science of prediction. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth.
* Rescher, N. 1998. Predicting the future: An introduction to the theory of forecasting. Albany: SUNY Press. ISBN: 0-7914-3553-9
* Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey . Wiley. ISBN: 0471012734.
* Seidensticker, R. B. (2005). Future hype: The myths of technology change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
* Schnaars, S. P. (1989). Megamistakes: Forecasting and the myth of rapid technological change. New York: Free Press
* Sherden, William A. (1998). The fortune sellers: The big business of buying and selling predictions. New York: John Wiley.
* Wood, G. (1992). Predicting outcomes: Sports and Stocks. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 201-222.

This is the item:

There’s nothing new about this of course – the product has been around for a while, and ways to take vinyl and digitize it have been offered since the CD became the music industry standard in the mid-1980s. What’s interesting is that it is still being offered in 2008, more than 20 years after the technology transition. And still being bought, despite a sticker price of gpb 299 (nearly $600. In fact, this is the special newspaper-tie-in deal price.) The producers and marketers have, no doubt, done their homework: there are still enough people out there with vinyl records to justify a product and a campaign, including big newspaper spots that don’t come cheap.

What does this tell us about the future, and about predictions? It illustrates a key principle in thinking circumspectly and more accurately about the future. Legacy investments and legacy situations are a reality. They often represent a significant slice of daily practice or market share, well beyond the time when things have, officially, moved on. For all practical purposes, in any future the past continues to exist for a long time.

A slow and measured exit
This is common sense. But often missed by breathless techo-forecasters whose eyes are fixed on the next new thing. The implication of many forecasts is, when a new technology emerges into the market (which often takes longer than expected) that is also when previous solutions fall away. Not so. Yes, sometimes a new product is clearly advantageous, and adoption is rapid and pervasive. But when there are real investments in prior systems and technologies, these typically work their way out of people’s lives slowly, often over generations. The transition takes longer than we think it will.

While they are still part of the picture, legacy systems work against change (“This is working fine for me, why should I shift?” or “I’ve invested heavily in this, I can’t afford to shift”). On the other hand, as evidenced by the LP2CD in 2008, opportunities in the legacy system, or in facilitating a transition to the new system, may exist and be significatn long after everyone’s attention has moved on.

There are legacies in all kinds of products and services. A case that is currently pertinent, as discussed in Future Savvy, is the existence of deep legacies in the automobile industry and gasoline-petroleum supply chain. Both petroleum supply constraints and carbon emissions worries are driving hybrid engines, new fuels, and renewable forms of energy (technology is not the obstacle here) but the reality is that we are all deeply invested in a legacy petroleum-automobile system, from the well to the refinery to the factory to the forecourt. Even when new / alternative energies are proven, reliable, and equal in price and performance, the legacy will continue to exist, and it will erode gradually, as companies or consumers slowly renew their investment over time. Of course regulatory or social pressure can accelerate the incremental process, but nothing can make it vanish.

This means, in this example, there’s no possibility of a sudden change in individual land-based transport solutions. Whatever comes along will have to emerge into and live side-by-side with past systems and infrastructure for a very long time.

Legacy as luxury
Here’s another principle of legacy systems surviving into the future. There are many examples where a surpassed technology remains in existence, but moves into a niche or luxury market. The car replaced the bicycle and the horse, but both continue to enjoy massive popularity. In the developed world, more bicycles are sold than ever in history, but these are primarily for exercise or leisure. Horses, once widely distributed through society as instruments of work, are still part of a very active industry, but this industry is about leisure and/or gambling. Similarly, electricity replaced candles as our primary means of illumination, but candles are everywhere – associated with mood and romance rather than functionality. Ball-point pens squeezed the fountain pen off the table, but that merely freed the fountain pen to become an icon of status and refinement.

Being graduate students, they’ve learned to prevaricate, and they do. It’s either No, with a bit of yes; or Yes with a bit of no.  Both are correct or course. Clearly nobody can see the future perfectly, but there do seem to be times and/or situation where some see it much more clearly than others. (And therefore make better forecasts. How one can recognize this is a core topic of “Future Savvy.”)

Anyway, I’m reminded of this because I stumbled on two Web links, one after the other, that are salvos in this debate. The first is at:           
http://picasso.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/09/08/Predicting-the-Future-We-veall-hear.html
This is very much the standard, smirking, “look-see-bigCheese-got-egg-on-his-face” testimonial, of which there are many. Bloggers are, in many ways, journalists, and all journos like to see a big-shot egg-faced.

The other link is a fun 3-min video, posted on the Disney blog, see

which is at
http://thedisneyblog.com/2008/09/08/how-good-was-disney-at-predicting-the-future/

The clip argues, possibly slightly tongue in cheek, that the Disney forecasts as portrayed “Horizons,” EPCOT in 1983 – 25 years ago – were, in fact, not bad predictions. (Context is Disney’s tomorrow visions have, generally, been discredited.)

Back to the smirk site, above, which bears further thinking about. This one is hardly original (why do they all have the same 20 quotes? They also normally start with the Yogi Berra-ism “Predicting is hard, especially about the future.” Yawn) but at least they all correctly put us on our guard as to the poor future thinking of industry experts. In fact, the record of future prediction is littered with the most astounding mistakes. From underwater cities never built to rocket mail that never flew to Y2K disasters that never materialized – the list of laughable errors is a mile long. Experts aside, all of us are liable to confidently anticipate things that wont happen while missing what is brewing right under their noses.

Prediction-skepticism
Fair enough. But, the predictive nihilism behind these smirk sites is is dangerous in a number of ways.

First it promotes the skepticism that “we cant know anything” about the future. If the experts were so wrong – let’s all just give up. And therein we get the problem of many people, including highly-paid managers, justifying ignoring or under-funding future thinking. Sometimes managers, not wanting to look unprepared, suggest resources and expertise be channeled into “fast response” so that when the future becomes clear they can move rapidly to profit. This view is soundly rubbished in Hamel & Prahalad’s classic HBR 1994 article “Competing For The Future,” and I don’t think more needs to be said. 

Second, there’s obviously no science behind the smirk. They pointedly do not show the number or extent of incorrect forecasts *in context of the total forecasts made*. We don’t know, in other words, how many people got it right or at least right enough to have profited or avoided losses. Wherever you have significant success, it is likely that there is a good-enough forecast behind it.

Finally the failed-forecast smirk lists also miss the fact that many forecasts are not meant to be an accurate anticipation of events. Many are trying to influence the future, that is, talk a particular outcome into being or shape it, or stop it from happening. People make predictions to sway an audience, or get a response from authorities or opposing forces. When Gates said: “640K should be enough for anyone,” who was he talking to, and what was he trying to achieve …? A real prediction of the future? I think not. Microsoft did not stop at 640, and nor did anyone think it would. And nor did Gates think anyone else would. Forecasts are often salvos in the games of power and influence, flagrantly used to marshal situations or promote self-interests, in situations where accuracy is not the point.

First, what’s if all about? If you already know, skip this section. Let’s start with the example in yesterday’s Telegraph: “Predicting the future – with the power of betting” Paul Parsons, August 19, 2008. As Parson’s reports, the University of Iowa is running a market where investors can buy “shares” in the two major US election candidates, each priced between $0 and $1. On election day, traders holding stock in the winner – Obama or McCain – receive $1 per share while the others lose their money. Investors can buy and sell their shares along the way, and as they do this the candidate more people will want to own (because they think he will win) will get more expensive. In other words, market forces will drive up the price of the outcome more people think more likely. As of August 19, the trading value of the Obama, at $0.62, suggests participants expect a 62 percent chance he will win. (Another prediction market site, midasoracle.org, has the figure currently at 59.8 percent.)

Prediction markets mimic stock market and deploy much the same software. Where a real market trades shares in an underlying asset, in a prediction market it is future outcomes which are “securitized”. The key principle at work is the sage market wisdom that “the price of a stock captures all the information known about it” – that is, all information is factored into the price (notwithstanding that some may have more or better information than others; some may be acting more wisely on their information). Therefore price is our guide to the cumulative knowledge of all participants and, in prediction markets, this “price discovery” allows us to know what most people think the future holds. They allow the “the wisdom of crowds” to be turned to a future problem, and tapped.

Serious Success

What’s exciting about all this is its success rate. Prediction markets are amazingly accurate in many circumstances, and by all accounts consistently beat more conventional quantitative and extrapolative methods. Prediction markets have consistently out-predicted election opinion polls and exit polls. Of course the predictive potential goes way beyond polling. Forecasting markets can and have been set up to predict the dollar movements to the success of same-sex marriage legislation, to who will win best actor Oscar. At one point there was even a US government market in future terror targets (trying to elicit public predictions of likely targets so as to plan accordingly) but this was deemed inappropriate and taken down.

As it has become clear that this method outstrips conventional forecasting methods, prediction markets have taken root in forward-looking businesses. Companies such as Google and Hewlett-Packard routinely use (internal) prediction markets to forecast sales figures, customer preferences, product adoption, and so on. HP is on the record as saying prediction markets consistently outperform their official forecasts.

The method has other advantages too. First, it requires no special techniques or expense. There are no fancy models to apply or complex algorithms to … to do whatever one does with such things. Second the forecasts are available in real time, all the time, and constantly update themselves. There’s no waiting for data collectors to collect, or statisticians to emerge with their answers.

The Limits

In my book, Future Savvy, I show how and why humans are poor at predicting, for dozens of reasons. The record of predicting is littered with failure. But, is that now all in the past? Do prediction markets solve the perennial problem of predicting the future, or at least get us closer? Yes and no.

Yes where prediction markets are appropriate. They work best under two conditions: first where there is a clear view of the options and operating conditions; second (related) where the time frame predicted is relatively short, usually under 18 months depending how fast things are moving. Where predicting the future means choosing between known alternatives, such as an election winner, or anticipating a point along a known continuum, for example the level of next year’s sales, prediction markets are great.
Where prediction markets run dry is in dealing with unfamiliar conditions, or unknown variables, or potential game-changing disjunctures in the world. Where the future is seriously fuzzy, where there are many variables, and the way they interact unknown, and drivers, blockers, and lags are hidden, prediction markets are of limited use because the outcomes can’t be framed adequately so that people can bet on them or against them. A prediction market for US president in 2012 would be far less useful than 2008. Similarly, while a market for the oil price in 2009 would be helpful, by 2010 or beyond factors driving the price may be so different (viz. developments in sustainable energy or geopolitics) that the result of a prediction market conducted in 2008 would be undependable.
So while prediction markets sort out probabilities between known likelihoods, they are not adequate to the task of investigating complex situations where we cannot frame the likely outcomes, or at least can’t know if we’ve framed them right. Also while prediction markets do help us, on aggregate, avoid some perceptual/cognitive fallacies, they are as likely as any other predictive tool to fall into the Zeitgeist effect. More on this soon…

A good list of articles on prediction markets is available here: http://www.midasoracle.org/best/

This was a fairly typical example of the Intro Workshop in Scenarios program that I run, so I’ve decided to post it on SlideShare, see link below. Let me know what you think.

What is different about this course at this venue, particularly, is that the attendees come from a wide spectrum of industries and sectors (from Nestle strategist to the Canadian military planners, to Mauri sustainability experts, and beyond), and have a very wide background/preparation in futures tools and methods. There were relative experts in the room, and some absolute novices. … nothing like a challenge for the facilitator!

Slides from the day are at http://www.slideshare.net/adgo/how-to-build-and-use-scenarios-day-workshop

some pix:

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.

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.”

I don’t think so. There are many new communication modes to explore as established media outlets get to grips with the micro-publishing and social networking technological possibilities and consumer preferences, but the fear that traditional journalism or traditional media is “under threat” is, to me, overblown. Yes, anyone can publish news and views anytime, but most strive to put their 2c worth on the media sites associated with the major newspaper and electronic media brands. Why? To benefit from (a) the visibility, that is, presence of many readers, and (b) the editorial quality – the brand promise – of the established media outlet. A submitted picture that is seen, for example, on The Guardian site, is worth a thousand pictures on mynonameblog.com. This is all-the-more true if the publication editors flag readers attention to the citizen journo contribution: giving it an editorial stamp of approval.

The power of hubbing has been talked about a lot, not least by management guru Michael Porter, and there can be no doubting the reinforcing feedback loop at work in hubs. In this case, where more readers are that’s where more writer-contributors want to be, which makes the hub more valuable to readers, etc. What’s most valuable to readers in a world of a billion potential journalists? Little doubt it is what has always been valuable to readers, that is, the activities of editors providing oversight and quality control: filtering, choosing, framing and balancing information and viewpoints. Any content that is not subject to oversight is, well, just someone yapping.

From origination to “hubbing”
What will surely happen to the main media outlets is that the percentage of own-originated content will go down as the percentage of publicly contributed content goes up. They will have to adjust their game to include wider information quality management. In addition to providing what they always have (quality and timely and relevant content) they will need to be able to function less as own-content originators and more as hubs – providing editorial-quality oversight and therefore attracting many readers in the virtuous-cycle spoken of above. But they will still be in business, and still in essentially the same business of information collection, editorial processing and oversight.

The citizen journalist may effect what the media outlets says and does – for example by providing evidence that must be included in a story – but this does not change the balance of power. The value of the editorial oversight and synthesis is higher than ever. This is what branded media providers offer and the citizen journalist cannot. The principle of anticipating the future here is this: where a service provides a value, the service-provider will continue to exist into the future. Nothing has changed in the value of editorial oversight, in fact, it is more valuable than ever. That’s why major media outlets will be part of the future.

This is not to say the current major media brands will survive – they may well miss or mismanage the transition to information quality hub function – and fold, as brands or as companies, as new ones emerge. The general news brands may also, over time give way to narrower topic niche brands. But the concept of a centralized quality-enforcing media hub is not dissolving into citizen yapping any time soon.

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.)