Future Savvy, as viewed by ‘Info-Savvy’ Peter Stoyko (SmithySmithy)

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 29, 2010 in all, decision-making, failed predictions, forecast filtering, Future Savvy, managing uncertainty, scenario planning, strategic foresight, trend tracking

I was lucky enough to have Future Savvy included in a lengthy review of critical thinking in forecasting & foresight, done on the SmithySmithy “info-savvy” blog. The post also included Nassim Taleb’s ‘The Black Swan’ (2007) and ‘Fooled By Randomness’ (2005); Kenneth Posner’s ‘Stalking the Black Swan’ (2010), and Chris Luebkeman’s Drivers of Change (2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Back to the sources of error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The C5 electric car and the art of getting the future less wrong than competitors do

Posted by Adam Gordon on Nov 19, 2009 in all, decision-making, emerging technologies, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, Future Savvy, Perils of Prediction, scenario planning, strategic foresight, technology change

In a recent Times article ‘The future was never going to be the C5‘ actor-comedian Ben Millar offers a familiar criticism of foresight work. Inter alia he says: “For all our achievements in art, science, and technology, the human race has always been spectacularly bad at predicting the future. Literature is littered with shockingly wide-of-the-mark utopias, dystopias, shiny suits, flying saucers and whole meals contained in a single pill. As a child of the Seventies, I was taught that as an adult in a world run by machines my main challenge would be how to spend my endless hours of leisure time…”

Yes, Ben. I’m sure you know this has all been said before ad nauseam. But more importantly, 40 years on many lessons have been learned, and it wouldn’t run foul of quality journalism standards to reflect this.

First, let’s be clear: nobody can predict the future. Anyone who says they can is a charlatan. Also, yes, unconscionably dreadful and irresponsible predictions have been made and are continually being made. But there are three problems with the ‘no-flying-car-so-there-we-can’t-predict-the-future’ argument:

(1) The kinds of predictions Millar cites are a product of a particular moment in Western thought and therefore foresight. The 1960s and early 70s were a time of Post-War American emergence, unleashing for a while a techno-futurist predictive rapture, most of which has indeed proved to be rubbish. There are still people, very famous talking-head futurists, promoting techno-rapture for the 21st century (caveat emptor) but as a whole the foresight field has moved on to become much more circumspect about what can be predicted.

Balancing techno-fantasy

Foresight practitioners are these days more likely to balance technology wowee with economic, social, and environmental friction; see systemic (often indirect or counter-intuitive) effects where once only simple cause-and-effect was seen; and create scenarios of key alternative outcomes rather than predict one.

(2) The second thing that is missed in gleefully deriding foresight work, is how many people and institutions get it right, or right enough.  It’s axiomatic that in order to be successful a person or organization must have correctly assessed both key changes and rate of change in their operating environment. To take a famous case, as quoted in Future Savvy, while Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1972 erroneously forecast super-sonic passenger air travel, Herb Kelleher, founder of SouthWest Airlines, foresaw the low-cost air travel industry. Bingo. Billionaire. Similarly, behind every success one can find future thinking that, while sometimes latent, was present and correct.

(3) The purpose of foresight work is misunderstood. We cannot predict the future and it’s pointless to try. We can only assess signals of change, trends, and potential for surprises and reversals, including challenging our all-too-easily calcified mental models, and take this into a process of understanding alternative outcomes and pre-considering best strategic actions. In other words, actively stimulating the investigation and analysis of future conditions in order to create the basis of better decision-making today.

In fact sometimes the ‘strategic conversation’ that results from poor predictions is instructive to managers. As I say to clients: the goal of foresight work is better decisions not better predictions.

Back-street abortionists

The reality is that there is good and bad foresight work. Yes, some futurists are the technical and moral equivalent of back street abortionists. But the good work remains, and quality foresight is a critical advantage to decision-makers. The key thing is to be able to tell good foresight work from bad.

Simplistic trashing of foresight work en bloc ignores the weight of case evidence that people and organizations can improve their management of future uncertainty and/or create a situation where they manage the future better than competitors. Further, it encourages managers to fly blind into changing environments, often resulting in spectacularly poor decisions that deeply and widely punish their dependent stakeholders.

Poundstretcher’s lessons for the future, for 2025, for 2050, and beyond

Posted by Adam Gordon on Aug 4, 2009 in 2025, all, economy & finance, failed predictions, lifestyles & values, social change, technology change

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.

“Prospects for Middle-East Peace Dim” was a good prediction and remains so

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jun 16, 2009 in 2025, all, economy & finance, Future Savvy, policy, politics of the future, strategic foresight

Top of the news yesterday along with Iran’s election protest was Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that he — as leader of the right-wing Likud party — could endorse a Palestinian state. It was framed in conditions on Jewish-state recognition, and requirements on security, borders, refugees and Jerusalem that are, from today’s vantage point, very difficult to imagine Palestinians or Arab states agreeing to. So no change is expected. Even the breaking-story reporters had to admit that, rhetoric aside, this is not a breakthrough.

There’s an old joke in journalism from the 1970s that goes: “You can write the same headline on any and every story about Israel’s relationship with its neighbors: ‘Prospects for Middle-East Peace Dim.’”

Sure, it’s partly Eeyeore-ish journalist wit. But what’s interesting from a foresight point of view is that, running the world forward 40 years shows it was a reasonable understanding of the future. Why? Solid foresight is always predicated on a solid understanding of the forces for and against change. “Prospects for peace dim” acknowledged that forces and enablers of change were overpowered by what was preventing anything fundamental from happening (friction and blockers in Future Savvy terms.)

The basic truth is that Israel-Middle East is a complex situation characterized by a more-or-less equal balance of power. Israel has military and nuclear superiority, and US backing. Arab countries have oil, population numbers and population growth, and a billion more-or-less sympathetic moslems around the world, and therefore time on their side. They also have, particularly in Gaza, relatively widespread poverty and low welfare and educational development, which is  a force against moderation and therefore a negotiated settlement.

A genuine balance of power means we have equilibrium, and therefore should expect no change. That’s why we’ve had plenty of skirmishes, but no change in 40 years.

Looking out for the next 40 years, is this still the case? Can we write “Prospects for Middle East Peace Dim” on all news stories for another two generations? Following the foresight logic above, this depends on whether anything breaks the fundamental equilibrium. There are four issues apparently large enough to threaten the status quo:

• Water shortages and water conflicts
• Change in US policy
• The end of oil-based transport energy
• Iran going toxic

Water is a favorite of trend-foresight sessions. It sounds like the key issue in a rising-population world. In theory yes, but it’s unclear whether it will lead to anything more than local conflicts or wars, which in Israels case, we have already. On US policy, the Obama administration is attempting to show even-handedness, but its strategic interest lies with Israel as military ally and ideologically temperate (democratic, at least) bastion in the region. So no change there either. On oil, we are definitely in an era where – for security and climate change reasons – fossil fuel is entering it’s twilight phase, which will erode revenues and therefore power of ME Arab states. But, as mentioned earlier, poverty is as great an obstacle to peace as any other. (Remember the Israeli “let’s-grow-our-way-out-of the-situation-together peace platform of the 1990s, seeing tackling the development issues as the root of creating moderate mindsets across the region.)

That leaves Iran which may change the balance if it really goes toxic (develops and uses nuclear weapons in terror strikes.) This is a low futures likelihood – it’s not just luck that nukes have stayed in their box since 1945 – no state wants to carry the stain of the nuclear pariah for all time. There’s a moral blocker on this outcome that has worked for generations. Nuclear powers rattle, but the don’t bite. But … what if the wildcard scenario of a massive nuclear strike on Israeli soft targets were to happen, what then? The current low-grade hostile standoff would become a supernova, but we’d still have power balance, and while we have that we’ll have status quo and  journalists can expect to write “Prospects for Middle East Peace Dim” on top of every story about the region for another 40 years.

The Age of Stupid viewed from 2055. Dystopic futuring meets activist journalism

Posted by Adam Gordon on May 15, 2009 in all, lifestyles & values, politics of the future

Apocalyptic predictions are designed to be wrong. The point of doing them, as with “1984,” “Brave New World,” “When the Wind Blows,” etc., is to raise consciousness to negative outcomes and engender action so that the prediction, by succeeding in purpose makes itself incorrect in fact. “The Age of Stupid” is this all over. See the trailer here:

There is also a documentary about how the movie was funded and made.

Set in 2055, post the environmental global climate change collapse, it features last-man-on-earth (Pete Postlethwaite) as an archivist in a tower refuge somewhere in the Arctic north of Norway sifting through records of human life before it was wiped out, trying to find out why people did nothing to stop the eco-catastrophe that was imminent. The plot device allows filmmaker Franny Armstrong, (director of McLibel, 2005, about environmentalists who successfully challenged McDonalds) to showcase a selection of real reportage and news clips from today to withering effect. Like any good scenario it gives granularity: dates, names, actions, timelines. It points fingers and mentally readies the reader-watcher to act.

By all accounts this is a punchier movie than Al Gore-fronted “An Inconvenient Truth (2006),” and punchy is what is required to effect the goals of a future-influencing forecasting, that is, an assault on the powers that be and/or on public complacency.

By the way, if you want to see the best activist consciousness-raising movie (ever!) see Pete Postlethwaite in the anti-Thatcherite “Brassed Off.”

Swine Flu and Google, and why the 1918 Flu Pandemic won’t happen this time

Posted by Adam Gordon on Apr 30, 2009 in all, forecast filtering, history

There’s an interesting Information Week article Google Tracking System Suggests Swine Flu Is Spreading posted yesterday (April 29) that investigates the possible predictive power of Googling (human search) activity, suggesting increased searching / monitoring of swine flu on Google could be predictive of rising levels of infection. Google says country-specific (Mexico) data for 19-25 April shows a spike in flu searches.

Pic: thisislondon.co.uk

Google introduced “Google Flu Trends” (US) in November as a way to visualize correlation between flu infections and flu-related searches. It maintains search levels provide early warning of flu spread because search data can be gathered and analyzed almost instantly, unlike traditional epidemiological reporting methods. (More on the goal of the project is in a post on swine flu on the official Google blog.)

The predictive power of Google spikes is hardly clear. Yes, a spike could suggest increased levels of infection. But it could be cause by media coverage and rising levels of pandemic concern.

Google predicts “no pandemic”

More broadly, however, the Google search phenomenon, and information saturation that goes with it is, I believe, highly predictive in epidemic situations. It predicts they are very unlikely. Generally, knowledge is power. Specifically deep and easily searchable public knowledge of where the epidemic is, and what to do to avoid it, and avoid spreading it, is a new condition in human history, one which in fact reliably predicts that no pandemic will happen. Yes, strains become more virulent and dangerous and even drug resistant, and yes, airlines transport it around the world in hours. But the power of knowledge in the labs and in the public at large is immense and ubiquitous in a way it never was before.

One of the debates in futures studies is how much and in what way to look at the past as a guide to the future. Paul Saffo says: look back at least as twice as far as you are trying forecast, and I agree with that. In thinking about a major modern global health epidemic our minds are in fact deeply conditioned by a 90-year-old event: the 1918 Influenza Pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million worldwide. In that epidemic there were particular conditions, not least four year of devastating war where more were lost to disease than fighting; associated drain on resistance and infrastructure; and forced mobiization of troops under poor conditions, that greatly facilitated the spread of the disease. Most importantly, ordinary people were operating in a knowledge vaccum that is unimaginable today.

This is not to say that we should not be vigilant and prepared. But the future that we most likely face is many-and-regular outbreaks like the swine flu, the avian flu, and so on, which we will move fairly quickly to contain. The dystopia of world pandemic is appealing to the health crisis community and its service providers, but the future will not be history (1918-1920) repeating itself.

The pub of the future and what Guinness would prefer not to be thinking about

Posted by Adam Gordon on Mar 16, 2009 in 2025, all, economy & finance, emerging technologies, forecast filtering, lifestyles & values, Perils of Prediction, policy, social change, technology change, trend tracking

It’s all in a day’s irony when Guinness releases its 250-year view of the future on the day that the UK Chief Medical Officer pleads for a minimum price for alcohol (and Gordon Brown, for now, says no, but don’t bet on that holding for long.)

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.

The dangers of prediction smirking

Posted by Adam Gordon on Sep 16, 2008 in all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, Future Savvy

In the MBA elective “Industry Foresight and Scenario Planning” that I teach, toward the beginning of Day One, I ask participant some very basic questions – basic questions being, of course, the hardest. One of them is: Can We Predict the Future, Yes or No?

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.

The Uses and Limits of Prediction Markets in Forecasting

Posted by Adam Gordon on Aug 20, 2008 in all, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, Future Savvy, prediction markets

Hmm. As the 2008 White House race hots up, we’re going to be hearing more and more – and then even more – about who prediction markets forecast to win, so it’s time to put down a thought or two about uses and limitation of this forecasting tool.

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/

Media Futures Conference, 2008: How value will survive into the future

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 17, 2008 in 2015, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, forecast filtering, innovation, systems dynamics, technology change

I was at the recent Media Futures Conference 2008 in London where a lively cross-section of delegates spent their time – as to be expected, this is the topic-du-jour – pondering the impact of social networking-based “citizen journalism” on the traditional media. In the era where everyone can “publish” all the time, what is the role and purpose of, for example, the BBC? As major news sites are scrambling to allow reader’s views, or eyewitness pictures and so forth, do they become dissolved in a sea of chat, blog, and tweet?

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.

More on “Future Savvy” rationale, and then I’ll stop. Promise.

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 11, 2008 in 2015, 2025, all, failed predictions, forecast filtering, foresight tools & methods, Future Savvy, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, strategic foresight, technology change, trend tracking

This is a how-to book: how to evaluate predictions about the future – how to assess which ones are credible and/or how credible they are (how likely the future will turn out similar to the prediction). It is not just a guide to bad forecasts, it is also about how to identify and extract what is valuable in any forecast. This benefits readers who are required to manage professional or  personal situations that depend on correctly anticipating change. Whatever we want to achieve – help a company be more profitable – solve the world’s problems – develop their career – success depends on a good reading of the future. There are many guides to the future (predictions) but no guides to the guides. This book fills that gap. It helps readers assess predictions so they can make better judgments about the future for themselves and their organizations.

Decision success always implies congruence between decisions and the world in which those decisions play out. If we decide today to launch a product, buy a house, study for a degree, build a new light rail system, or take any similar decision of significance, the environment of tomorrow will be a key factor in the success or failure of that decision. What we do will be tested by the future conditions that emerge. Where there is a good “fit” between the initiative and the environment it plays out in — “the right product at the right time” — we can expect success. If not, we should expect to fail. Our decisions are only as good as the view of the future they rest on. All opportunities and successes and profits are realized in the future. All threats, failures, and losses are in the future.

In a fast-moving world, we know that the future environment will be different to that of today in big or small ways. New technologies, market shifts, changes in legislation, or evolving social values damage or destroy the traditional good fit we have between ourselves and the world. To achieve “future fit” we therefore use forecasts to position ourselves and our organizations, creating (or renewing) the fit between our initiatives and environment. In some cases we may be strong enough also to influence future events and outcomes for our own future benefit, and forecasts help us do this too.

All enterprises benefit from narrowing down what they must adapt to and plan for – all effort spent preparing for a future that will not emerge is a waste of personal or organizational resources. Good forecasts are a key ingredient in limiting the vagaries of uncertainty, and therein working smarter not harder, avoiding surprises, exploiting new opportunities and plugging weaknesses in fitting in with the future, and where possible influencing the future to suit the organization. This is true not only of business. People and institutions of all types position themselves for success by anticipating and adapting to events, or shaping them. Whether it is an NGO raising money for developing-world children, an urban planner advocating a light rail system, a homeowner deciding to sell a house, or a student making a career choice, identical principles apply — a higher-quality reading of the future operating environment in which these decisions will play out is what separates winners from losers. We should all be vitally concerned with forecasts as we are all effectively betting significant resources on their validity.

Future Savvy: Why the book? Why the blog

Posted by Adam Gordon on Jun 27, 2008 in all, Future Savvy

Predictive statements are all around us: in the newspapers, on TV, at conference presentations, in industry reports, consulting documents, think tank studies, and so on. All claim to be valid, but the record shows that many are not. This book is about how to critically interact with and evaluate forecasts. It’s a how-to book for policy people and managers, specifically, how to judge whether a forecast is valid or not, or under what conditions it can be depended on. It is written to help decision makers in commercial, policy, and nonprofit sectors, as well as ordinary people in daily life, make better judgments about predictions they read and hear, so they can appropriately plan for and profit from the future.

Obvious background to all this is that rapid change is a constant, ubiquitous feature of our lives. Important changes across society, technology, institutions, and products and services are constantly occurring. But the future is not merely interesting, it is competitive: the earlier and clearer we see future circumstances, the better we will be able to benefit by changing our current recipes for success – to keep up with the changes in the world. The better managers’ view of the future, the better their decisions will turn out to be. So, change matters, and managers in business or policy realms have to correctly anticipate change. And therefore they turn to and depend on predictions of others. One might say that forecasts are a crucial decision-success resource. But these forecasts are often badly done or done with a purpose to influence the future (that is, not just to predict it). Therefore decision-makers need to be able to judge how good a forecast is – so as to know how to or whether to factor it into their world view. Managers need to be able to critically judge predictive statements to be able determine which ideas are worth taking seriously – worth planning for and investing in.

The book sets out to communicate tools and approaches that the forecast consumer can use to filter and evaluate statements about the future, and thus judge what the real threats and opportunities are. It summarizes and orders the problems common in forecasting, as well as best practices, so that managers and decision makers of all types may be better able to critically interact with the barrage of forecasts that compete for their attention and resources and discriminate between worthy and unworthy ones.