by The APF‘s “Futures of Futures” scenario workshop in 2003 identified four critical uncertainties for the future of the futures field:
- addressing the extremely fragmented nature of the field; futurists must get better at working together more closely as a field to be successful.
- confronting our aging tool kit; it is not as if methodological innovation has stopped, but it is seen as largely incremental.
- creating a unique value proposition that distinguishes futurists from mainstream consultants.
- Improving the poor public image of the field; this suggests that there is a long-term task ahead of careful rebuilding the brand of futures through a more sophisticated engagement with the public, especially the media.
We exuberantly proclaimed that while we saw these challenges ahead would be easy and might take a generation, we felt that we could achieve our goal of a “credible profession, thriving professionals.”
The table below looks at how are we doing.I think a fair conclusion is that not much progress has been made as we look back 10 years later.
| Critical Uncertainty/Challenge | Status |
| Addressing the fragmented nature of the field | Not aware of any significant activity in this area; collaboration is discussed, and willingness seems to be there, but no critical mass |
| Confronting our aging tool kit
|
A lot of collaboration with design; greater use of gaming and simulation
Continuing innovation with existing methods; not much “new” Another issue is “what is our tool kit? |
| Creating a unique value proposition to distinguish | This may be happening at the individual practitioner level, but not the field level |
| Improving the poor public image of the field
|
Not much here….
Some efforts to recognize foresight work: APF MSFW and Student Recognition; WFS “Futurist of the Year” etc. |
I think a fair conclusion is that not much progress has been made as we look back 10 years later.
It is also fair to say that APF has been in the process of building itself as a viable organization and has not yet taken on the field and profession-building challenges (such as the four above) in a significant way.
For me, one takeaway is the idea that these challenges will not simply take care of themselves. They need to be confronted, owned, and acted upon by “someone.” APF is a logical champion and its current interest in professionalization suggests it may be ready to take on these and other challenges (see my recent paper with Jeff Gold on professionalization for more). To be clear, I am not suggesting that APF is the only one to do this, or that APF can do it alone. I’m suggesting that APF is a good candidate to get things moving, and that it appears to be ready. Here’s hoping. Andy Hines
Hi Andy, I LOVE what you are saying. I have been studying economic development of the future with Rick Smyre, founder of the Center of Communities of the Future. I am also working as Director of Business Development at U.S.SourceLink, jointly owned by the Kauffman Foundation and the University of Missouri-KC Innovation Center. Our organization is national and provides the tools necessary to develop entrepreneurial eco-systems focusing first on all the resource providers in a community.
In the futures space, so many people have a difficult time thinking in the abstract. So much of what needs to be done today and in the future goes against how business has been done over the past 20 years. How about we connect over LinkedIn and find a time to talk further? I am very interested in figuring out a way to connect all organizations of the future to the entrepreneurs, academics, business, government and nonprofit organizations with real tangible examples so they can understand based on prior experience.
I believe helping all people to adjust to the new “Creative Molecular Economy” or “organic economy” with hands-on, tangible way approach in a number of different sectors, industries, leadership, workforce and our youth would be a phenomenal solution…
My very best,
Cathi