forecasting | Hinesight

Foresight and being right

November 14, 2012 by Andy Hines Leave a Comment

We’ll avoid the whole “did you get the future right” discussion here. [See "how accurate are your forecasts?" if that’s of interest]. Rather, here, let’s look at ourselves as futurists and how we personally view “being right” about the future. In the “Integral Futures” module of Alternative Perspectives class, we discussed Ken Wilber’s notion of everyone being at least partially right, while still acknowledging that some might be more right than others.

The basic argument here is that it’s a good characteristic to not be too sure of the “rightness” of your work (of course, this notion could be less right than others). I remember remarking (well, complaining) once after a briefing that a group had interpreted our scenarios “wrong.” They didn’t get it – they missed what we meant. It was pointed out to me –and I don’t remember who or I’d give credit – that another way to look at it is that once you put an idea out there, it’s fair game how people interpret it, even if that’s not what was intended. In class we referred back to the social constructionists, who suggest that meaning-making is essentially a process of negotiation. And keeping in mind that “right” is also very context-dependent — maybe by a certain set of rules or with a certain power structure, something is not “right,” but if it were different rules and structure, maybe it is the better way.

I have found it very useful to fight my impulse to think I have the right answer or right interpretation to something and hang in there as long as I can and keep the mind open. Cuz once you think you’re right, you tend to switch on your “ignore” button to counter-arguments.

Finally, when I’ve been in a position to hire futurists, I’ve always put a lot of stock in candidates who “aren’t too sure” of their own rightness. Do the “dig in” when challenged and argue harder for their point, or do they listen, consider and maybe ask a clarifying question. I think the latter make better futurists….but I may not be right. Andy Hines

Filed Under: Foresight Tagged With: alternative perspectives, forecasting, forecasts, foresight, futurist, integral futures, social constructionism

Speculative fiction and the future

September 1, 2012 by Andy Hines Leave a Comment

An interesting post on “speculative fiction” and the future suggests 15 novels that were best at forecasting the future, getting at least parts of it “right.” There were a few I haven’t read. Here are the two I strongly agreed with:

Neil Stephenson’s A Diamond Age (featuring the “Primer”)
William Gibson’s Nueromancer, which along with Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive are the standard in cyberpunk IMHO (and many others)

And a few that I wouldn’t have thought to include, but can see the case for:

Ayn Rand’s, Atlas Shrugged
Kurt Vonnegut’s Galapagos (not sure if I’d have chosen that one, though it is interesting – Slaughterhouse Five might be the more common choice)

I decided to take a quick of my book shelf and see what I’d add:

Bruce Sterling’s Heavy Weather – who knew a book about weather could be interesting and provocative and perhaps eerily prescient?
Iain Bank’s The Player of Games –one the “Culture” novels about a human-machine symbiotic society; I’ve enjoyed the series, but I guess if I had to pick one…
Verner Vinge, A Fire Upon the Deep and Across Realtime – fans of the Singularity must consult these “original sources”
David Brin’s Earth, who knew a book about the environment could be interesting and provocative and perhaps eerily prescient?
Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars, is the first of a Mars trilogy about the politics of colonizing Mars and I liked it the best of the three by a wide margin

I’d recommend any of these to those who want to access ideas about the future from fiction. Andy Hines

Filed Under: Foresight Tagged With: bruce sterling, david brin, forecasting, iain banks, kim stanley robinson, neil stephenson, science fiction, Singularity, speculative fiction, vernor vinge, william gibson

Great forecasting! 1991 Scientific American Computing, Communications, & Networks

August 31, 2012 by Andy Hines Leave a Comment

Futurists are often asked for examples of how their work “got it right.” I even wrote a paper answering the question “How Accurate Are Your Forecasts” so I would have a better answer for this. I’m always on the lookout for good examples of forecasts that helped to paint a picture of what’s coming.

I recently came across a reference to the spectacular 1991 Scientific American Special Issue on the Future of Computing. I remember that fondly as it came out while I was in my first year as a professional futurist working under Joseph Coates. I was completely blown away with that issue, which gathered a mix of names and lesser known’s to pull together what may be the single best magazine issue I’ve ever come across. It included Mark Weiser and PARC’s “ubiquitous computing” concepts, with, yes, “pads” much as we see them know. Cover to cover, the authors cut across the landscape and paint a picture of the information world we’ve largely come to inhabit. If you really want to see how it’s done, order a copy from Scientific American, or a I found a fellow blogger, WiredPen, who gathered some copies and abstracts in a blog post. Enjoy! Andy Hines

Filed Under: Forecasting, Science & Technology Tagged With: communications, forecasting, information technology, networking, Scientific American

More Fun with Evaluating Forecasts

August 30, 2012 by Andy Hines Leave a Comment

I have written and posted on how forecasting is generally more accurate than at least the media would have you believe — with the caveat the forecasts are often best part of a range of alternatives and intended to provoke thinking, and not necessarily to predict the future (since that is virtually impossible). So, we can get a good sense of the possibilities. But of course, futurists are stilled asked about their accuracy rates. So I’ve been on the lookout for these, having written about my own and my colleagues work, Futurist Editor Ed Cornish, and Ray Kurzweil. Me and my colleagues and Ed came out about 67% accurate; Kurzweil claimed 78% dead on and the rest being close, with just 3% wrong. So far, so good. But, alas, a little cold water was splashed in my face when I re-read former client and colleague Rich Albright‘s wonderful piece: What can past technology forecasts tell us about the future? Technological Forecasting & Social Change 69(2002) 443–464 445. He convened a panel of eight reviewers to evaluate 100 forecasts of of technical innovations made by Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener [1] in their classic The Year 2000, A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years published in 1967. The reviewers found found that fewer than half of the forecasted innovations occurred before the end of the century. I was curious as to why they seemed to find a much lower accuracy rate. So I went through the 100 forecasts myself, and put on my tough grading hat (don’t tell the students, but I’m kind of a softie on grading) and my results were not much different. They found that 40ish% and I netted out at 49% had clearly occurred by the turn of the century. Another 25% were close, but this was not horseshoes. As I discussed in “How Accurate Are Your Forecasts? there are many fine lines in terms of wording and interpretation. Nonetheless, the search continues. If anyone has a good lead on some forecasts that have been evaluated, please pass them along. Andy Hines

Filed Under: Forecasting Tagged With: albright, Cornish, evaluation, forecasting, Kurzweil

A Framework for Thinking about the Future

August 30, 2012 by Andy Hines 1 Comment

Andy Hines & Peter Bishop, Thinking about the Future, 2007.

One of the more useful frameworks we’ve adopted at the University of Houston’s Futures Studies program was the was the one we developed for our Thinking about the Future (TATF) book. The framework was first discussed at an Association of Professional Futurists‘ Professional Development meeting as a high-level scheme for categorized the main types of activities that comprise strategic foresight. When we were putting together the TATF book, we collected literally hundreds of guidelines for doing strategic foresight from three-dozen professional futurists globally, and we needed a framework to organize them. Thus, the marriage was made, as the guidelines sorted into the framework quite well.

Since then, we’ve been organizing our curriculum around this framework, and use it as one of our introductory principles for how to better think about the future. Enjoy! Andy Hines.

Filed Under: Books, Foresight Tagged With: acting, forecasting, foresight, framework, framing, planning, scanning, thinking about the future, visioning

Another take on Future of Work Surprises

August 30, 2012 by Andy Hines Leave a Comment

I really enjoyed the commentary “A Dozen Surprises about the Future of Work: Implications for Workforce Professionals” by Kristin Wolff of Enhancing Workforce Leadership. She attended my Dozen Surprises talk and I thought the notes she posted had some very insightful interpretations that y’all might enjoy. Andy Hines

Filed Under: Forecasting, Foresight, Work Tagged With: forecasting, foresight, future, surprises, work

Are We More Optimistic about the Future than We Should Be?

April 7, 2011 by Andy Hines 1 Comment

Apparently so!….Our Futures Studies program had the great pleasure of a visit with Philipp Ecken, a colleague with Center for Futures Studies and Knowledge Management,EBS Business School. He joined us for several classes–and a few cocktails as well. We are always pleased to share our thinking and learn from others how they do it.

Perhaps the most interesting research that Philipp shared was a draft of a paper “Desirability bias in foresight: Consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results” written with his colleagues Tobias Gnatzy and Heiko von der Gracht (will link to paper when it’s published). Their research focused on the desirability bias, which causes experts (and lay people alike) to assess the probability of desirable events too high and undesirable events too low. In other words, if we want something to happen, we judge it to be more likely to happen than an event that we are neutral towards. Similarly, if we don’t want something to happen, we downplay its likelihood compared to an event we are neutral toward.

Some may find this intuitively obvious, but it is sure helpful to have “the data.” My observations working with clients support the desirability bias. Clients tend to reject or at least downplay bad news, and are always eager to focus on the positive. Many times clients have asked us to take out forecasts judged too negative (and, well, these have often subsequently happened!!!) Part of this, I suspect, in the US at least, comes from our “can do” culture in which those touting the positive are judged as “movers and shakers” and those who point out the negative are “doom and gloomers.” Combine this with the desirability bias, and no wonder it is difficult to engage with potentially negative futures. Rather than prepare for the negative, we hope for the positive.

As with any bias, the key is awareness. Knowing about the desirability bias helps us plan accordingly. In fact, Philipp and his colleagues found that the use of the Delphi technique helped reduce the impact of the desirability bias – it didn’t eliminate it, but it did reduce it.

So, folks, beware of your, or your clients, desirability bias. In foresight work we separate the steps of creating the map of the future landscape, such as scenarios, from the step of visioning, or creating a preferred future. Thus, we paint a neutral picture, and then we can engage our optimism in crafting a preferred future. Again, though, in crafting our plans to reach the preferred future, we should be aware of desirability bias, so that we don’t craft plans at odds with what is actually going on. Andy Hines

Filed Under: Forecasting Tagged With: bias, Delphi, desirability bias, forecasting, optimism, pessimism

Categories