I reviewed the foresight literature to see what futurists have said about success. What I found was that the discussion of success included a mix of purposes, goals, and benefits along with ideas about success. I identified forty sources that touched on these themes in a significant way. One common theme was that foresight work is ultimately aimed at decision-making, specifically making “better” or more informed decisions about the future. As the figure shows, the decision-making process can be broken down into three components: learning, deciding, and acting. Learning is about providing information about the future that can inform decisions. Deciding is the making of a decision. Acting is taking action on the decision, because without action, it’s not really a decision, unless the decision was to take no action.

The aspects of success mentioned in the literature sorted nicely into these three categories (not show here for space reasons). What is shown is that the “backbone” of foresight work, that is, the six key activities of framing, scanning, forecasting, visioning, planning, and acting, feed into these three components of decision-making. Framing, scanning, and forecasting feed into learning; visioning and planning feed into deciding, and acting, of course, feeds into acting.

One way to interpret this framework is that most foresight work is aimed at learning, with a secondary focus on deciding, and a tertiary focus on acting. Put another way, most of our work goes into providing decision-makers with better information about the future to inform their decisions; sometimes they ask us to help with deciding (visioning and planning), and occasionally we help with acting.

My goal in developing this framework was two-fold: to see if we futurists can agree on a common framework for what successful work aims to achieve, and also to share with clients to set their expectations. If we can achieve that, we can then set about the logical follow-on task of exploring how to measure that success. Andy Hines

1. LVC for types of simulation: Live players – football practice; Virtual – people in virtual; Constructive – virtual in virtual
2. Models –> simulations –> forecasts
3. Difference between play and games: Play is about exploration, without winners and losers; Games are based on a model and have  winners and losers
4. Two outcomes for training simulations: (1) Learning about the situation, e.g., how to fight fires (2) Learning about oneself, e.g., how did I behave in the situation?
5. “We don’t care about succeeding…we sometimes fantastically fail…learn….and keep learning”
6. It occurred to me (andy) that personas are going to move from posters to simulations
7. I’ve been trying to think of what to call the six activities of foresight we teach: framing, scanning, forecasting, visioning, planning, action; I saw some word art on a wall that looked like a spine, but that didn’t seem right, but “backbone” did. Wonder if it will stick? Ideas seem to emerge when you’re in a relaxed environment, with good people, and enjoying yourself.
8. Evolution of big data from descriptive to predictive to prescriptive
9. “Smart cities” of the future may not be connected by geography, but rather by the smart ICT platform
10. It was touching to see “the Godfather” appropriately recognized (nice job, Lee!)
11. “Research makes zombie games really useful.”
12. App culture has decimated the game studios, and very few app makers make any money
13. There is a dark side to gamification – e.g., social games are really about getting your money more than about encouraging social good
14. On my summer “to do” list: developing more games in our curriculum
15. APF has done amazingly well in consistently making the gatherings an ideal blend of learning, networking, and fun.
16. Futurists are really fun people, perhaps a bit crazy, but good crazy! Andy Hines

A great part of these events is getting to see familiar faces who we don’t get to see often enough. Professor Emeritus Oliver Markley kicked off the Saturday conference with a stellar presentation on “Alternative Images for Cities of the Future.” Among the points particularly catching my attention was a video (shareable future of cities) he showed from Alex Steffen of Worldchanging.com that raised the provocative notion that perhaps trying to making “clean energy” vehicles is a misdirected approach to clean, livable cities. Rather, he suggests, get rid of the vehicles altogether. He proceeded to demonstrated how make cities, or areas within cities, denser could effectively eliminate the need for vehicles. If everything is within walking distance, why drive? Brilliant!

Oliver was followed by new friend Todd Gentzel, Chief Strategist at Yaffe Deutser in Houston, who gave a brilliant presentation “Psychology and the Field of the Future.” Among his striking points was the introduction of Philip Zimbardo’s work on the psychology of time. Todd shared his framework of six time perspectives:

• · PAST NEGATIVE (fixated on a difficult past)
• · PAST POSITIVE (nostalgic for the good old days)
• · PRESENT FATALISM (resigned to the forces of fate)
• · PRESENT HEDONISM (living in and for the moment)
• · FUTURE (planning for a better tomorrow)
• · FUTURE TRANSCENDENTAL (anticipating the beyond)

Wonderful, such a handy framework in working with clients or audiences. Definitely something we need to work into our curriculum.

Rives Taylor, Director of Sustainable Design at Gensler, who is going to help out with the Design Futures course this summer, presented “Lessons from Houston: Infrastructure of a Resilient City.” I had to suppress a squeal of delight when Rives presented a slide on Integral Thinking for “Resilience Planning.” The use of the integral 2×2 also had my Alternative Perspectives students in the audience smiling as this was a topic we devoted significant class time to. It’s great to see the spread of sophisticated futures thinking spreading.

Finally, Cindy presented “Great Urban Divides” that addressed the issue of how can cities accommodate the influx of population coming in the emerging markets – with their growing levels of affluence threatening to put a great strain on urban capabilities. My greatest takeaway the sharp drops in population forecast for China and India beginning mid-century. Sure, my mental modeling surmised they would level off, but seeing the graph with the decline was somewhat jarring. Reminds us of the important of taking the long view, which, um, yeah, we’re supposed to be doing!

There was more, but those were some high-level personal highlights for me. Of course, putting a bunch of futurists and friends together for a day, I would expect nothing less. Andy Hines.

There is no “right” answer, of course. It depends on the individual and their circumstances and capabilities. First, to clarify terms. Generalist refers to one who works on a wide range of foresight topic and use a range of tools. I would put myself in that category, having seemingly worked on the future of almost everything over the last 20+ years. Specialist refers to one who picks a particular domain or topical interest, and becomes an expert in it, along the lines of an “energy futurist,” “transportation futurist,” “legal futurist,” etc. It may also be possible to be a “single method” futurist and brand your expertise in say, doing a particular type of scenario technique, or perhaps being expert simulations and gaming. I haven’t seen much of this, but is seems plausible. For instance, when I think of CLA (causal layered analysis), I think of Sohail.

And, of course, there are hybrid versions. Mostly generalist with some specialization. In my case, for instance, I’ve done so much work on consumer insight and values that I know present that as a specialization. I suspect, over time, that many generalists find this happening. Or you start as a specialist and gradually expand into new areas.

For students, though, is there a better way? One clue might be whether the student already has a subject matter expertise and can then futurize it. It may be that an undergrad major or work experience provides the foundation for specialization. It is probably a bit easier to break into professional foresight with a specialization, as it addresses the credibility question. It’s perhaps tougher to break in as a generalist, unless you are willing to pay your dues and start at the bottom. These are the days of entry-level research assistant that I remember, hmm, somewhat fondly.

It also helpful to take stock of what makes you happy. Would you be okay being narrowly focused, perhaps going over the same ground, giving the same talk, again and again? Or do you live for the challenge of always breaking new ground – and being okay with the risk that you’re going to miss something obvious in an area new to you (every generalist’s nightmare)?

It depends, but knowing yourself and your anticipated brand can help you point you in the desired direction, and, of course, we can always change. Andy Hines

The scenarios suggest a range of plausible outcomes for knowledge work out to 2020. Virtual Teams Collaborating suggests a future most similar to today, where present trends continue and strengthen and enable a quite manageable transition to a greater reliance on knowledge work. Back to Basics, on the other hand, presents a plausible picture of how a greater reliance on knowledge work is not a given, as tough economic times and security concerns compel a retreat to a world of work more like the past than the present. Socially Centric Work also presents a series of challenges to knowledge work, but in this scenario they are successfully resolved, relying on a much greater integration of social networking tools to manage the transition to the world of knowledge work that goes deeper than Virtual Teams Collaborating. Finally, Personalized Professions presents a more provocative view of knowledge work that has a transformative effect on how work is done, leading to a future in which all workers are thought of as knowledge workers.

It is interesting to note that the trend to more of the 5 “izations” — digitization, collaboration, globalization, virtualization, and personalization —  is present in three of the four scenarios, varying in timing and the extent of penetration.  Only in Back to Basics, where I/T security concerns are front and center, are the “izations”  stalled. Andy Hines

I looked at this question in my dissertation and found it has received intermittent attention over the years (Cornish, 1977; Horton, 1999; Becker, 2002; Schwarz, 2005; Amsteus, 2008; Sardar, 2010; Masini, 2010; Marien, 2010; Tonn, 2010; Rohrbeck, 2011). The pattern seems to be one of (a) flurry of activity (b) inability to achieve consensus (c) long quiet period, (d) repeat.

One phenomenon I’ve noticed in that last 10 years at APF, which has an active listserv for conversations, is that when this or related questions about the field/profession get raised, two things happen: (1) someone inevitably points out that it’s all been talked about before (2) others suggest it’s not really relevant anyway — and the conversation quickly dies out. Thus, in my experience we’ve actually talked about it very little – and this is a professional association!

I think these are critical questions for those of us interested in building the field and the profession (and fair enough, not all of us are). I suspect that if we simply try to have the conversations again spontaneously, we’ll repeat the cycle above. What I’m thinking is that we first need to figure out a strategy for how to work through these issues before we dive in again. Does that make sense? I think we can do it, but it won’t be easy.

Full disclosure: “Foresight” is my preference. Andy Hines

References

Amsteus, M. (2008) Managerial foresight: concept and measurement. foresight, 10 (1), pp.53-66.

Becker, P. (2002, October) Corporate foresight in Europe: a first overview. Working Paper. Institute for Science and Technology Studies, University of Bielefeld, Germany.

Cornish, E. (1977) The study of the future: an introduction to the art and science of understanding and shaping tomorrow’s world. Bethesda, MD, World Future Society.

Horton, A. (1999) A simple guide to successful foresight. foresight, 1 (1), pp. 5-9.

Masini, E.B. (2010) The past and the possible futures of futures studies: Some thoughts on Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the namesake.’ Futures, 42 (3), pp.185-189.

Marien, M. (2010) Futures-thinking and identity: why ‘‘Futures Studies’’ is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the namesake. Futures, 42 (3) pp. 190–194.

Rohrbeck, R. & Gemünden, H. (2011) Corporate foresight: Its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78 (2), pp. 231-243.

Sardar, Z. (2010) The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; Foresight — What’s in a name? Futures, 42 (3), pp. 177–184.

Schwarz, J. (2005, Fall) Linking strategic issue management to futures studies. Futures Research Quarterly, pp. 39-55.

Tonn, B. (2010) What’s in a name: reflections on Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the namesake.’ Futures, 42 (3), pp.195-198.

In ConsumerShift, “Glass Houses” was one of the seven key “meta-needs” reshaping the consumer landscape. It suggested that growing numbers of consumers would shift to an activist and sometimes aggressive orientation. They would be intolerant of behavior they deem wrong and are not afraid to let the offender, or any interested party, know about it. They feel they are not to be trifled with and that their values and beliefs are important and need to be respected. These consumers are watching, often all the time. They are often savvy users of technology and expert in the world of information, and they use that to support their cause. Accountability is the buzzword; it won’t always be pleasant; and it won’t always be fair. The best an organization can do is stay consistent and true—or, closing the circle back to our first need state cluster, be authentic. “Spin” and message control and such tools will only get organizations into trouble. Telling the truth will, eventually at least, earn respect and credibility that will be appreciated and rewarded over the long haul.

Sounds like we have an interesting case example of “glass houses” here! Andy Hines

“Historians study the past; futurist study the future. The future(s), actually. We believe there are many ways that the future could play out, and that since there so many factors involved, we don’t try to predict the right one. Instead, we forecast a range of plausible options or scenarios, and then we identify and track indicators to tell us which way the future is heading. We don’t just guess. We have a rigorous set of concepts, methods, and tools that have been developed over the last 50 years. And the whole purpose is influence the decisions we make in the present, so we work towards the futures we would like to see happen and work against those we would like to avoid. ” Andy Hines

In our Seminar class this semester, we are prepping the students for the post-program world. Part of that involves some personal strategic planning (BTW, we use alum Verne Wheelright’s excellent It’s Your Future: Make It a Good One). So, I thought about my personal vision for what kind of aging futurist I want to be and what kind I want to avoid. So, please invoke your sense of humor here, and recognize that I am by no means implying that I am not quite capable of the “don’ts” and I’m not bashing all aging futurists, many of whom are among my best friends!

Ten Do’s and Don’t for an Aging Futurist

Andy Hines