Developed by Averil HortonIt is easier to define what Foresight is not. It is not
gazing into a crystal ball, predicting the future, or even trying to guess the future. Rather,
Foresight is the process of developing a range of views of possible ways in which the future could develop, and
understanding these sufficiently well to be able to decide what decisions can be taken today to create the best possible tomorrow.
Foresight can have a number of biases, the most common being
technology. The UK Government ran a Technology Foresight exercise in 1994 -1995 which had several aims and objectives, but resulted in the publication of 15 Panel reports, covering different business sectors and/or
technology areas, which set out a road map of expected future developments in technology, together with a series of recommendations as to where the UK science and technology base should concentrate its efforts to derive
the best benefit for 'UK plc'.
Foresight, as carried out in a more business based environment, is about looking at possible futures in a range of areas, which may include technology but which will certainly cover
other areas such as politics and demographics, and deciding what decisions the company can take today to create the best possible future for itself.
Overview of the Model (See diagram on next page)
The process follows three phases, generally in chronological order.
Phase One comprises the collection, collation and summarisation
of available information (usually that such as trends, expected developments, unusual happenings etc.) and results in the production of Foresight knowledge.
Phase Two comprises the translation
and interpretation of this knowledge to produce an understanding of its implications for the future of a particular business.
Phase Three comprises the assimilation and
evaluation of this understanding to produce a commitment to action in a particular business.
In a successful Foresight process these three phases will result in taking decisions and actions which
will be different to those which would have been carried out in the absence of the process.
Each phase creates a greater value than the previous one as the results move up the information value chain from
information through knowledge to understanding. However this value is only realised at the very end of the process and then often with a significant time lag. Each phase is also more difficult and time
consuming, more abstract, and less easy to measure than the preceding one.
The Model in More Detail
Phase One
Collection:
Information on futures themes, trends, ideas, and viewpoints etc. is collected from a wide range of sources such as experts, universities, business networks, personal networks, customers, suppliers, the 'literature', government, other Foresight reports, research, and surveys. There are many methodologies and process which can be employed, such as scanning, Delphi surveys, systematic reading, abstracting, and simply talking to people. The major characteristic of this information is its sheer volume; it is very broad in scope, overlapping, and often contradictory.
Collation and Summarisation: The collected information is collated in order to give it structure and form, reduce its volume, and eliminate what is not relevant. It is then summarised in order to present it in
a manageable form. Again there are general methodologies and processes available such as scenario building, list writing and prioritising, graphical comparisons, cross impact analysis etc.
The whole of Phase One in
many cases amounts to standard managerial practice and is therefore easy and familiar for managers to do; new tools and skills are often not required. However there is already a judgmental element to the process and one
pitfall to be avoided is to disregard information which does not appear relevant at first glance. Phase One is best carried out (or at least managed) by the business itself, in order to generate some sense of ownership
and credibility of the resulting knowledge, with perhaps third party help to identify areas which would not have been considered otherwise and in specific areas of unfamiliarity. Third parties can also provide short
term help to help cope with the initial volume of activity and information generated.
Phase One is in general easy to do, generates a great deal of activity, looks impressive, and feels satisfying that something is
being done. The UK government Technology Foresight Programme performed this process well and in a very short time scale. It is however the least valuable part of the Foresight process.
Phase Two
Translation:
The knowledge summarised in Phase One is in a variety of languages - technical, economic, social, legal, environmental, foreign, even incomprehensible. It needs to be translated into a language that is understood by the business. Essentially the requirement is to remove jargon and speak in a 'plain language' but with the appropriate business slant and terminology. This is not an easy operation, but has parallels in science writing. It does however need to be done explicitly; it is not possible to assume that everyone can do this for themselves when they receive the knowledge generated from Phase One.
Interpretation: This is the key step and is the heart of the Foresight process. The translated knowledge needs to be converted into understanding. The aim of interpretation is to get over the "So what?
" factor - to get over the 'all this knowledge is very interesting, but so what?' response. This requires interpretation into issues, road maps, views, or scenarios of the futures that are relevant
to the business. Interpretation must be specific to the particular business. The essence of the process is to develop and understanding of What does all this mean for my business? What are the implications for
us? and What can we do about it today? Interpretation is all about teasing out the implications of the various possible futures views for a particular business. There is at present no methodology for
doing this (although scenario building can provide some help) and it is extremely difficult to do. It is always assumed that managers somehow automatically realise what a change in the future business environment means
for the future of their business. They do not. Third parties are essential to interpretation. The managers of the business can provide the business knowledge (and generate an ownership of the outcomes) but a third party
is needed to facilitate the processes of creative and lateral thinking, to ask the difficult questions, and to help managers to think outside-the-box. A good interpretation will yield a list of strategies and
actions which can be taken today to address the various possible futures which have been revealed. Interpretation is in fact translating from an understanding of possible tomorrows
into an understanding of actions which can be taken today.
Phase Two, especially the interpretation step, is what Foresight is all about; it is critical to the process. It is where most of the value is added,
generating an understanding of what can (or cannot) be done for the future. Interpretation was not part of the UK Technology Foresight program. Interpretation, the most crucial step in the whole process, is poorly
understood, and has few or no techniques. Some basic research may be needed.
Phase Three
Assimilation and Commitment:
The understanding generated in Phase Two needs to be assimilated by those whose job it is to carry out the resulting actions. This is why the Foresight process cannot be done for, or on behalf of, a business by someone else; going through the process generates not just ownership of the outcome, but also facilitates assimilation and commitment. However, it is usually impractical for everyone in a business to be involved in the Foresight process and much of the outcome will still need to be communicated to a wider audience. The optimum technique for communicating the results of the Foresight process to managers and others in a way that will generate a commitment to action is not known. Written reports are unlikely to be effective (although there are some specialist techniques for writing to generate action, such at that used in Reuters text reports, which may provide a template) as reports do not tend to get read, yet alone properly assimilated. It is likely that seminars, workshops, and informal networks will work better. This is particularly relevant in the case of Foresight output, as it tends to be much less absolute and guaranteed than the content of most business reports. The future is never predictable in any way and the communication of Foresight results needs to have this uncertainty at its centre, rather than as an added extra. This is not the usual way in which business information is presented, and a better understanding of subjects such as cognitive science may be required here. There are parallels with marketing, the need to understand the customer's needs and present the information in a way that meets them, and with innovation, which contains much about transfer of knowledge and understanding between players in an business. These suggest that Foresight outcomes need to be presented not just in an audience-specific manner, but with a good understanding of the needs and aspirations of the recipients.
The understanding generated in Phase Two is of no value whatsoever unless it gets to the right person, is assimilated, and unless a commitment to actions develops. There is absolutely no point is going through the
Foresight process unless something different happens as a result. This last phase is therefore the only place at which the value of all the foregoing work can be realised. As with all business decisions, the feedback
from those actions can be slow and this is especially the case with Foresight which is inherently longer term.
Some Difficulties with the Foresight Process
Doing it Yourself, With Others, or For Others
Participants in the Foresight process can derive as much benefit from going through the process as they can do from the end results. For those business who have the resources to operate the process for
themselves, this is a benefit. The role of third parties is however is still essential for these larger businesses, in such areas as working outside the areas of familiarity (either business or technical areas), or the
problem of putting future uncertainty at the centre of discussions, and the creative process of thinking outside-the-box.
For smaller companies who cannot devote sufficient resources to the process, there is the
dilemma of deciding whether either third party studies, or even 'off-the-shelf' Foresight studies, can be of any real benefit. The process must be tailored to the needs of a particular business, so that some external
help or reports may be better than others. Work done by third parties on a sectoral basis seems to be the most valuable, that done on a company size basis of questionable value, whereas that done on a regional basis
(which is often the only source of possible funding) is probably invalid - the geographic co-location of a company is unlikely be a basis for common Foresight.
Measuring Foresight Effectiveness
As
the process is worked though several things happen: the process gets harder, shows declining activity, requires more time from more people, has a greater abstract content, shows declining output, and increases in
criticality. The value of the exercise is not developed until the end, or after the end, of the use of resources. Most businesses therefore want to be sure that they will derive benefit from the process and that they
can measure the effectiveness of the results, preferably in financial terms. However, as with subjects like innovation and training, demonstrating the benefits in financial terms is difficult and measuring effectiveness
equally so. Activity based measurements were used by the UK Technology Foresight program (number of participants, reports, meetings etc.), but the relationship between these and effective outcomes is unproven. As the
process moves forward activity measurements are less and less valid. The delayed feedback from the actions taken does not help as it is never really possible to identify a chain of events through which anything can be
proved - there are always alternative explanations possible. As with innovation and training, long term tracking of companies actively going through the process may be the only practicable route.
Conclusions
1) Foresight is about a value chain of information, knowledge and understanding
2) Gaining understanding is the key to deriving benefit from the process
3) Going through the process can be as valuable as the results obtained
4) Deriving value from Foresight requires getting to the end of the whole process and taking the required actions.
5) Companies
must do this for themselves; outsiders can add value as catalysts and perhaps as temporary resources.
6) Segmentation is essential for those with limited resources wanting to use others' work; Sectoral
segmentation is the best model, size less so, and by region not at all.
7) There are some important gaps in available techniques and methodologies
8) Measuring Foresight effectiveness may only be possible in the longer term.
