Hinesight....for Foresight

For Foresight, Use Hinesight

You are here: Home / Search for "framework foresight"

Search Results for: framework foresight

by on 2 Comments

Design Pizazz for the Framework Foresight Cone

 

The process is never done (see the last tweak). Sometime we get lucky with students who are not only supremely talented and hard-working, but also want to contribute to the long-term health of the program. Houston Foresight alum Maria Romero, now doing foresight work with Knowledge Works, did the original design for us. And now, soon-to-be-alum Denise Worrell has designed the next iteration. Not only has Denise designed this lovely cone, but she has contributed her considerable talents to client research projects and redesigned our PowerPoint and Word templates.

She has brought in new colors and a 3D element that really brings the cone to life and somehow simplified – what kind of sorcery is this? Please feel free to use as long as you cite it (source included in the graphic).

Just a reminder that I had a piece published in the journal Foresight that reviews the updated process.  – Andy Hines

by on 2 Comments

A “Final” Tweak to the Framework Foresight cone

Final is in quotes to acknowledge that the process is never final. But there is a necessary balance to having some stability in a core process such as Framework Foresight and keeping it up-to-date. Based on feedback to the update posted a few weeks back, it seemed useful enough to do one more tweak before we leave it alone for a while.

As I suspected, there was a sense that it was getting close to “too busy.”

  • The first fix was to remove the labels of the alternative futures using our version of the Archetype technique. So collapse, new equilibrium, and transformation were removed. I also like this change because it suggests a more open approach to generating the alternative scenarios. While we fairly recently adopted the modified Archetype approach as our “starter” technique, we strongly suggest that any number of techniques can be used, as we described in our scenario overview article several years ago.
  • The second was in the second half or “influencing” part of the cone. After implications, previously, the activity was labelled “issues and offerings.” This reflects that the implications generate issue for identifying strategy issues (in a strategy project) or new offerings (in an innovation project). This is still true, but in both cases, the next thing to do is to identify responses or “options” for action. I realized that in our project work the last few years that we more routinely referred to this step as the “options” step, as we like that it more directly connotes action!

There you have it – again! Just a reminder that I had a a recent piece published in the journal Foresight that reviews the updated process.  – Andy Hines

by on Leave a Comment

Updating the Framework Foresight cone

It’s that time again. We’re always tweaking our core Framework Foresight process. Every few years the tweaks build up and it’s time to update the summary graphic. The changes to the process are described in a recent piece published in the journal Foresight. We’ll focus on the changes to the graphic.

The first is the addition of the Research “TIPPS.” One of the tough choices Peter Bishop and I made when we put together the original six Framework steps was the omission of “researching.” We wanted to have six single words. We toyed with researching, but felt that scanning was more futures oriented. We also toyed with scanning & researching, but stuck with the single words. So for years we’ve been explaining that scanning includes research. Now we don’t have to anymore J. TIPPS is the acronym we use for specific types of futures information: trends, inputs, plans, and projections. This specificity is different than scanning, which includes any type of signal of change.

The next addition to the graphic is the drivers. In practice, we almost always did drivers in our project work, but we didn’t explicitly include them in the earlier versions of the Framework process. Well, it only makes sense to teach what you practice, so it’s in there now. The last change was to include the four archetypes for the baseline and alternative futures. We decided a few years ago to use the archteypes as our core process. Just a quick reminder – while we have a core process, we do not in any way, shape, or form claim that this is the correct way to explore the future! Framework foresight is designed to be modular and incorporate other techniques. It just makes it simpler to teach to have a core process.

There you have it. We like the additions, but we recognize it is getting a bit busy and struggled a bit with that. Let us know what you think! – Andy Hines

by on 1 Comment

Framework Foresight Video

A key mission of Houston Foresight is to introduce people to spread the use of “high-quality” foresight. In order to do that we need to bring more people into the fold and introduce them to the future. One of the ways we’ve been doing this is through videos. Our latest video explains our core “Framework Foresight” approach to exploring the future. It was masterfully produced by alum Kimberly Daniels. It comes in at just under four minutes.

Framework Foresight, emerged from piecemeal roots in the 1990s to an established method around 2013. Since then, it has evolved from primarily a teaching tool to a project methodology in its own right. (We use it in all our project work with clients). The method is a systematic way to develop a “start-to-finish” future view of a domain or topic of interest, to explore its implications, and develop proposed responses.

Here’s the article version. Enjoy! — Andy Hines

 

Filed Under: Foresight, Methods Tagged With: , , ,

Sign up for updates

by on Leave a Comment

Evolution of Framework Foresight Part 5 Archetypes

Let me begin with proper credit to Professor Jim Dator for the concept [Jim Dator, Alternative Futures at the Manoa School, Journal of Futures Studies, November 2009, 14(2): 1 – 18. ] and Wendy Schultz’s scenario archetype elaborations and former futurist colleague at the former Social Technologies and [not surprisingly a Hawaii program grad] Mark Justman as my key influences, and probably others that I’ve forgotten.

The principal tweak that we’ve made is to genericize the archetype stories into underlying patterns of change that can be used to explore the future of any topic. A key assumption is that we view the topic (“domain” in our lingo) as a system. We use a loose operational definition of system as “the way things are done or the established rules of the game.” That domain/system is likely to follow one of the four archetypes, which are essentially common patterns of change.

The table explains the patterns for each archetype, and includes a “made-up” example using automated vehicles.

The archetypes provide the framework or structure for developing the scenario stories. You take the set of drivers developed in the previous step, and interpret their outcomes in each of the four archetypes. That provides you with a set of ingredients or plot elements upon which you can build the scenario story. Simple, right? A great technique to use with groups new to scenarios and foresight, and from our experience, they provide a robust set of scenarios to work with. See our Future of Work for NASA example

What is going to be key, I think, is that once we’ve set the drivers in each archetype, how can we be sure to include the interesting non-driver information we gathered (scan hits for instance may not be connected to drivers) into our scenarios. – Andy Hines

 

by on 5 Comments

Evolution of Framework Foresight: Drivers (part 4)

The graphic has the drivers in the rectangles. This is from a project on the future of knowledge work we did about ten years ago. It was interesting that we were able to identify drivers flowing out of each of the domain map categories. It’s a good discipline to try this, but in depending on the topic, there may be multiple drivers from one branch and few or none in some others. A great set of drivers on the web is Arup’s Drivers of Change.

Definition: Help me pick one, please! (1 is simplest, 3 is most accurate for our process)

  1. A driver is a thematic cluster of related trends that is influencing or shaping change.
  2. A driver is a thematic cluster of related trends and inputs that is influencing or shaping change.
  3. A driver is a thematic cluster of related trends, issues, plans and projections that is influencing or shaping change.

Imagine each of the inputs on a separate card on a giant table. (Indeed, in my previous work when we were more often face-to-face, we did this fairly regularly.) Then your task is to cluster the related inputs. There seem to be two principal strategies:

  • Pick a primary input that you think is influential, and then look for related inputs
  • Simply gather together related inputs.

I often advise the former for those new to the process. If a team is doing this, we share our initial cluster themes, and then modify and combine. We might do a second round of clustering, or move right to prioritization of the initial themes if we are in a hurry. Of course, we’ve been researching the project and likely have some thematic ideas in our heads already. It can be useful to have an “outsider” come in and cluster, as they may see things differently than those immersed in the project.

As one looks across the various scenario techniques, the logics or plots of the stories, are typically built upon a relatively small number of key elements, say a dozen plus or minus six. Of course, more elements are considered, but building the core of the story relies on a smaller number, and the others are mixed or salted in after the core logics/plots are set.

So I think it is useful for us in the program to incorporate this driver step in our core Framework Foresight process. Being familiar and comfortable with driver building will aid students in developing the full range of scenario techniques. — Andy Hines

 

 

 

 

by on Leave a Comment

Evolution of Framework Foresight, Part 3

Last time we talked about the different approaches we used to develop inputs to create the ingredients for the baseline and alternative futures. In the revised approach, we are going to use the inputs to first create the drivers. To feed an archetype scenario process, one needs drivers (aka variables). Once of set of drivers is identified from the research and scanning, each driver is plugged into each archetype to see how it plays out differently.

In Futures Research class this fall, we are testing a new “all-purpose” inputs worksheet. Again, a key distinction is that the inputs are aimed primarily at constructing the drivers, rather than as direct inputs into the scenarios. By all-purpose, it means that the baseline and alternative futures do not have separate inputs anymore (like we described in part two, in which there were baseline inputs and alternative inputs).

Below is the revised inputs worksheet consisting of four key inputs [keep in mind that the scanning library is another input as well]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have long included a trend inventory of anywhere between 75-150 trends in a project. And we often defined trends very loosely such that issues, plans, or projection might be written as trends to create one master inventory. I suppose as an academic, such loosey-gooseyiness cannot be tolerated, so we’ll keep the trend inventory to trends, and keep the other inputs separated. It’s only four, right, not too much to deal with.

Next time, let’s talk about how we get to the next step: drivers.  — Andy Hines

by on Leave a Comment

Evolution of Framework Foresight Part 2

With the history on hand, let’s now dig into some fairly significant process tweaks we’re implementing in Framework Foresight (FF) this fall in Futures Research class. The key change is in how we do forecasting/futuring. The essence of the step is to produce a baseline and alternative futures. [Keep in mind that the framing and scanning steps have preceded this step and the templates act to guide and capture this research.] The baseline is the extrapolated future with no major surprises – trends stay on track, mainstream plans are fulfilled, and conventional projections are accurate. My experience is that the baseline inputs generally work well and that most individuals and organizations are pretty comfortable with producing the baseline.

Producing the alternatives, however, has been problematic. The alternative futures are generated using a different set of inputs to generate ideas on how the futures might be different than the baseline. There is typically some consternation about what the categories mean, and what exactly we are after. A challenge is that the alternative space is so wide open – there is not a lot of structure, which is often important to students and those new to foresight. Some will go focused and “thematic” and try to be consistent and have all the inputs fit together. Others will go broad and gather a wide range of inputs and often struggle to develop a theme.

We note that template and the categories are intended to stimulate ideas about alternative futures. We recommend revisiting scanning hits before tackling the alternative futures inputs to refresh thinking on interesting ideas. The Horizon 2 and 3 scanning hits provide stimulus for alternatives (Horizon 1 hits are for the baseline). These inputs in turn provide stimulus for developing the alternative futures.

In teaching FF, whether in the Master’s program or even the week-long boot camp, we have students develop one alternative future. That is generally do-able with some struggle. However, we have not typically used this approach to develop a full set of scenarios. Here, we typically employ one of the various scenario techniques. One that we’ve found useful, particularly given that we are often working with those new to foresight, is the scenario archetype technique. I previously wrote about some tweaks we’ve made to Dator’s original approach. So, to wrap up part two, we’re adopting the archetype approach as our standard approach within FF. More next time!  — Andy Hines

 

by on 2 Comments

Evolution of Framework Foresight (part 1)

Framework Foresight is the core method we use to teach students how to explore the future. It is deliberately designed to be flexible and modular to accommodate the many other great techniques out there in the world of foresight. The origins go back to Peter Bishop’s develop of Framework Forecasting in the early 2000s – as that name suggests, it basically stopped at the forecast. The update and renaming to Framework Foresight included the accommodation of the “so what” component of a foresight project. What do we do with the forecasts? The steps of visioning, planning, and acting were integrated with the “original” framing, scanning, and forecasting steps. The 1st edition of Thinking about the Future codified the integrated process.There are always some minor tweaks and refinements that are made as a method is applied. The updated process was published in Futures in 2013 (link) and a second edition of Thinking about the Future added a chapter on the integrated FF process. Along the ways a significant tweak was rendering the process into a user-friendly graphic. Then grad student Maria Romero incorporated the FF process into the cone of plausibility in a beautiful way. [Some of you will remember some of the old ugly process maps, several of which I authored!]

The next significant tweak (not quite an “update”) was to incorporate the language and refinements from the new APF Competency model (link). That  has been ongoing the last couple of years. I’ve been keeping them together: forecasting/futuring. At some point, I’ll need to rip off the band-aid and go completely to the new language. The new competencies are below. As you’ll see, framing, scanning, and visioning stayed (with some refinement to the details of what they mean. Forecasting becomes “futuring,” planning becomes “designing,” and acting becomes “adapting.

Next week: 2018 Updates to the FF process   — Andy Hines

by on Leave a Comment

Updating Framework Foresight with Six APF Competencies

We at Houston Foresight are very excited by the publication of APF’s Competency Model. As teachers of Foresight, we need to update our approach to synch up with the field as it evolves. Thus, we’ve updated our Framework Foresight process. The good news for us is that the changes are relatively minor. The foundation of the Competency Model Team’s thinking was the original “Thinking about the Future” framework, which after was developed in part with the APF back in 2007. The original six steps have been slightly modified.

  • Framing is still Framing, with the addition of sub-competencies include domain mapping.
  • Scanning is still Scanning, with the addition of “research” as a deliverable. This has always been a tricky one in the sense that scanning include research. For the sake of simplicity we call it Scanning, but it would probably be more accurate to call it research and scanning
  • Forecasting is now Futuring. In developing the competency model, the Europeans advocating strongly for this change, citing confusion with more tradition forecasting. While this has been less of a concern in the US, we wanted the competency model to be as globally appealing as possible.
  • Visioning is still Visioning, with a more explicit nod so sense-making, which in Framework Foresight is implications analysis.
  • Planning is now Designing. This may be the most significant change and reflects the growing influence of design on foresight. Prototyping is identified as a sub-competency to acknowledge the importance of bringing the futures to life.
  • Acting is now Adapting. It includes sub-competencies that used to be part of planning as well as sub-competencies that were part of acting, such as identifying and tracking indicators.

One immediate influence on the Houston Foresight curriculum is a second offering of a Design Futures elective this summer put together and taught by Cindy Frewen. We’re hoping that we may able to include that as a regular offering.

It also means editing a lot of presentations, but this minor inconvenience is well worth the benefit of having APF agree on this new competency model. – Andy Hines