by One more entry in the wildcard series (for now, at least). In the last piece we raised the point about wildcards not really being wildcards upon further inspections. Hiltunen found that a large number of “wildcards” are actually gradual changes. One further piece of ammunition comes from Houston Foresight Professor Emeritus Oliver Markley — he added a third criterion — credibility — to the standard probability and impact for characterizing wildcards. His point in his piece “A New Methodology for Anticipating STEEP Surprises,” was that in retrospectively analyzing wildcards, there was a point in time at which experts became persuaded it was viable, but that mainstream remained unaware or unconvinced — global warming was used an example. He adds further ammunition to the argument raised last time that wildcard is a relative term.
For me, then, a key distinguishing impact of a wildcard may be its “suddenness.” There are few or no wildcards to track that would provide any sort of useful planning time. A ”classic” wildcard — 9/11 — may not meet this standard, as we’ve learned that indeed the US government has entertained such a possibility beforehand, and there were weak signals suggesting immanence, albeit lost among lots of noise. So, if we use suddenness, wildcards come out of the blue, even if we have identified them as possibilities. They still “surprise” us by the suddenness with which they strike.
Which leaves us with an interesting exercise to look at lists of wildcards and see how many meet the suddenness test. My hunch is that the list is going to be very small.
This foray into wildcards, I suppose, is helping me to sort out my thoughts on foresight and surprise. I hope you’ve enjoyed the journey so far, and I’ll share anything useful that might emerge on this topic in the future. Andy Hines
In couldn’t agree more about wildcards – so many are actually gradual and even “predictable” — the challenge always seems to be getting others on board in time to “ride the wave”. One of the biggest challenges I have faced since practicing and honing my foresight skills is adjusting my communication to include those who don’t see quite as far as fast…I’ve noticed other foresight professionals have the same concerns.
Are there suggestions out there for making the “wildcards” seem less “wild”, especially when we can use foresight techniques like STEEPL to help?