framework foresight | Hinesight....for Foresight

by Andy Hines on August 24, 2021 Leave a Comment

How foresight strengthens strategic planning

Can foresight help strategic planning? You betcha. We designed Framework Foresight to “feed” strategy, innovation, policy, design, etc. The first half of the process maps the future, in order to help the client influence the future in the second half. The beauty is that the scenario landscape map (and all the supporting scanning and research) informs and helps the team to develop much more robust and resilient strategies.

My sense is a strategic plan most often has strategic priorities that are very solid and sensible. Where specifically does foresight help:

Looks beyond the baseline. Most strategic plans address the Horizon 1 baseline future. There is nothing wrong with addressing the baseline, but a foresight perspective extends that view to look for significant changes or disruptions. A baseline-focused strategic plan assumes a continuity future with no shifts/surprises, but as we like to joke, that is the least likely future.
Develops more resilient strategies. Another significant value that foresight brings is to consider how strategies might fare in different scenarios. For example, s strategy might work extremely well in one scenario but poorly in others. Sometimes a team will develop a sense of direction about where the future is heading, and develop a strategy primarily aimed at that, but with contingencies just in case. And sometimes a team will develop a strategy that avoids a particular negative scenario. The scenario landscape provides a backdrop to have a much more informed strategic conversation.

I worked on an APF Professionalization Task Force a few years ago that developed foresight ecosystem map that identified the close relatives of foresight. Strategic planning is most certainly one of them! – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on May 20, 2021 1 Comment

The typical three month foresight project

In our teaching as well as in our project work, we talk about the “typical” 3-month project. We joke that there is no such thing as typical and it is relatively rare that a project takes exactly three months. But it is pretty close to average and it helps frame the conversation about project timing.

The graphic shows how we divide projects into three major parts of work over time.

The first part of about 4 weeks is focused on research. We start by framing the project and creating the visual domain map that helps guide the project. We then simultaneously launch our scanning and current assessment. The scanning will go on for the entire research part. The current assessment gets us up to speed on the recent history, key stakeholders, and hot topics. This may take a couple of weeks and then it’s on the the TIPPS inputs (trends issues plans and projections).

That brings us to the 2^nd part of 4 weeks: developing the scenarios. The first step is to synthesize the scanning, current assessment, and TIPPS into a set of drivers. The drivers are then used as the key building blocks of the scenarios. There is typically a scenario generation workshops in this part, which is followed by a write-up phase and we’ll often add in some extras to bring the scenarios to life.

The third and final part of about 4 weeks is about interpreting the scenarios/futures together with the client. We like to do a workshop in here if we can. We start with implications, identify issues and/or opportunities, and develop strategic options for addressing them, and tie it all together with an integrated strategic approach across the scenario landscape. Specific recommendations, typically in sequenced phases, round out the project. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on October 7, 2020 7 Comments

Sexy Foresight

I am pleased to see a collaboration with former guest student Alex Ferganani and friends captured in a new article in the Europan Business Review: Corporate Foresight In An Ever-Turbulent Era. Alex visited with us last fall as part of his PhD work. The topic was the State of Foresight and in particular we wanted to craft an article that would help introduce foresight in a simple, compelling, and sexy way. Beyond doing a very nice article (primarily by Alex), I thought it would helpful to highlight a few things we did to increase its appeal:

First, we broke the basic six-step process of Framework Foresight (based on the APF competency model) into three steps. This pained me a bit — the first bow to sexy. So

Scanning including Framing and Scanning
Futuring stayed Futuring
Reconfiguring included visioning, designing, and adapting.

There were a couple of other places where I felt it made sense to be a little sexy (this one has more to do with me personally):

“Corporate foresight.” I know there fans of this out there, but I am not one of them. It implies a distinction from governmental foresight that I don’t see as worth marking. The process is basically the same. There are differences in the goals or output, but the ability to accommodate these differences is built into our basic Framework Foresight process. For that matter, any foresight process can just be tweaked a bit to deliver business concepts or policy options. I suppose there is some branding value in “corporate foresight,” along the lines of “strategic foresight.” We add the word strategic to make it sound more serious, but there is no separate process for strategic and I guess non-strategic foresight. Again, the larger principle in play here is introducing the future as widely as possible. If corporate foresight is a sexy concept, there is no real harm in using it.
Reconfiguring. My sense was that reconfiguring was a bit too strong to capture the influencing the future steps (visioning/designing/adapting). In my experience with foresight projects, we don’t always reconfigure what the clients are doing. Sometimes we do not change the client at all – if they are happy with process and results, why change it. I suppose there is a mindset in foresight work that clients always need to be changed (ha ha). Challenged, yes, but changed, maybe not. Maybe they are doing good foresight and just need to keep doing it. The larger principle that prevailed here was that reconfiguring was more appealing. I recognize that my own tendency to be nuanced, balanced, and fair is not all that sexy, thus we went with reconfiguring.

I think we need as much sexy as possible — and no more. Quite simply we need to bring more people into the fold and we could use use a little sex appeal – we can “coach ‘em up” later. Nonetheless, I recognize this is dangerous territory. What do you think? What’s your policy on sexy foresight? — Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on July 22, 2020 4 Comments

Getting a handle on who is doing foresight

The Houston Foresight program kicked off an effort to explore the State of Foresight last fall. The basic question we want to address is “who is actually doing foresight?” A deceptively simple question, right? Not exactly. The foresight field has painfully little data on this question. Professional futurists don’t even know how many of us there are!

You have to start somewhere. Our first crack at it looked at the corporate sector. As you might imagine, it’s challenging to figure that out for the entire sector, so we started with the US Fortune 500. In short, what percent of the Fortune 500 is practicing foresight? Drawing on some incredible work by then grad student and now alum Lesia Fejer, my UH colleague Laura and Schlehuber and I went through the data and came up with a figure. Drum roll, please: 25%. I’ll refer readers to a post we did on the Houston Foresight blog that explains how we came up with that number.

The 25% figure wasn’t a huge surprise to us – going in we assumed it was under 50%. We’re working on an approach now to track that number on an annual basis, and hopefully 5-10 years now we’ll have some solid data to see which way it’s trending. Is it growing? How fast?

Readers of this blog probably know that I like to have answers to basic questions so that we can tell a consistent story on what’s happening with foresight. As long as we’re all guessing, we create confusion in the minds of clients and the public. Now, if someone asks about how many companies are doing foresight, we have a credible basis to start that conversation. It’s not perfect and more work needs to be done. But we’re moving in the right direction.

Going forward, our project would like to one day answer fundamental questions such as:

How many corporations, government agencies and NGOs, and non-profits are practicing foresight?
How many professional futurists are there, including consulting, organizational, and academic futurists?
Once we have a handle on that, then we can explore what they are doing, e.g., what frameworks, methods and tools are they using? How mature is their practice?

— Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on November 19, 2019 5 Comments

Images and decision-making in foresight

I had a nice conversation with some colleagues on a private listserve on the role of futurists. One camp suggested that foresight had “erroneously shifted focus toward actual decision making which of course is not within our ambit. Instead we seek to influence through broadcasting and communicating the images of the future we create.” I gently countered that I think we should do both: help craft images and help make decisions. For me, it’s not either or.

I sorta addressed this point in my “Let’s Talk about Success: A Proposed Foresight Outcomes Framework for Organizational Futurists.” In that I suggested our primary value is in “learning/mapping futures” (aka images), a secondary value was “deciding/influencing futures” (aka decision-making) and a tertiary value in acting (aka prototypes). Specifically, I think we are more differentiated in mapping images, and less so in influencing decisions. But I also noted that we add value in connecting images to decision-making (which is no small task).

I understand the argument that we should stick with where we bring more value – crafting images. But my experience is that it is very difficult for people to connect them to decision-making, and thus I think the field should (and has) moved in this direction. Just crafting images, it seems to me, is a recipe for irrelevance. I believe we need to connect our work to decision-making if we are going to be useful. What do you think? – Andy Hines

by Tom Rau on October 7, 2019 3 Comments

Thinking about the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight

Thinking about the Future, by Andy Hines and Peter Bishop, distills the expertise of three dozen senior foresight professionals into a set of essential guidelines for carrying out successful strategic foresight. Presented in a highly scannable yet personable style, each guideline includes an explanation and rationale, key steps, a case example, and resources for further study. The 115 guidelines are organized into six sequential categories that mirror the phases of a strategic foresight activity: Framing, Scanning, Forecasting, Visioning, Planning, and Acting.

An updated second edition is available on Amazon for $14.95 paperback and $6.99 e-book. The changes include:

Most important, our additional work on the process of using the six framework activities opened up an opportunity to provide specific “how-to” process advice to supplement the guidelines. Thus, I added a new step-by-step how-to chapter to conclude the book.
Some of the guideline examples were getting a bit dated. All the examples of the 115 guidelines were reviewed and 55 were updated. This also add some new references.
My friend and colleague John Smart, who inspired several folks to review the book and thus helped deplete the first edition, was adamant that I change the shape of the new edition paperback, so it is now a 6×9 instead of the original square. The cover is redesigned as well.

by Andy Hines on December 20, 2017 1 Comment

Research Projects at Houston Foresight

My project work these days is with the research capability we’re building at the University of Houston Foresight Program. We are drawing on our network of faculty, alums, and, primarily, the students. It’s a great win-win-win. Students get real project experience, clients get reasonably priced foresight work (and the satisfaction of helping students), and the program gets some money (which is really important these days).

I’m just back in town from doing a three-day Houston Foresight Certificate training with an awesome team at XPRIZE. It is so energizing to work with groups who want to change the world — bravo!

We recently completed a project on “The Future of Work for NASA’s Langley Research Center.” The project used scenario planning to create long-term views of the future of work. The scenarios will be used to “wind tunnel” the current plans and activities of NASA, and enable them to make the appropriate adjustments to their current strategy. The goal was to stretch thinking out to the world of work in 2050 and then “bring it back” to a strategic approach and initiatives that could be started in the present. The Houston Foresight team consisted of Andy Hines (PI), alum Maria Romero (Project Manager), and students Tim Morgan, George Paap, and Mathew Palubicki.

We also completed a project with Kimberly Clark Corporation on “Technology in Baby and Childcare Products To 2030” that we are briefing at their headquarters this month. It is currently confidential, so we are not yet able to share it. The five-month study focused on consumer attitudes, highlighting parents and the growing subcategory known as “baby tech.” The findings offer specifically long-term strategic insights with respect to the use of technology in products for babies and young children. The foresight methodologies used included Horizon Scanning, Three Horizons, and Causal Layered Analysis as well as pieces of Houston Foresight’s Framework Foresight approach. The Houston Foresight team consisted of Andy Hines (PI), faculty Alex Whittington (Project Manager), and students Tim Morgan, Justin Ochs, Cindi Stuebner, and Mathew Palubicki.

We have also continued our collaboration with the Northern Research Station of the US Forest Service. The purpose of the project has been to help them set up a Horizon Scanning system. Indeed, it is up and running, as our joint team has tagged 855 scanning hits to our online library at this point! You can check out blog posts highlight key scan hits on our blog, and we also developed a Forest Futures newsletter. We are now writing some articles and a technical report based on what we’ve learned. The Houston Foresight team for 2017 consisted of Andy Hines (PI), alums Johann Schutte and Maria Romero, and students Kurt Callaway, and Kimberly Daniels.

These research projects provide great experience for our students. I would like to thank our sponsors Dave Bengston and Mike Dockry at the Forest Service, Clay Bunyard at Kimberly Clark, and Rich Antcliff and Sara McRae at NASA. We are always on the lookout for new Sponsored Research Projects, so please let us know if we could help! – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on July 18, 2017 2 Comments

Foresight Competency Model published in WFR

What do futurists need to know how to do? The APF’s Foresight Competency answers that in a new article: Building Foresight Capacity: Toward a Foresight Competency Model in World Futures Review. The development of a competency model is a nice milestone in the evolution of foresight – we’re growing up!

The purpose of the multi-cluster model is to clarify how futurists collectively view their knowledge, skills and abilities. The central cluster of the model is a circle of 6 foresight competencies: framing, scanning, futuring, designing, visioning and adapting (explained below). This central node is undergirded by a base of 3 clusters: personal, academic and workplace competencies. In turn, two competency clusters: sector and occupational roles are above the center foresight competencies.

Framing Scoping the project, defining the focal issue and current conditions

Scanning Exploring signals of change or indicators of the futures

Futuring Identifying a baseline and alternative futures

Visioning Developing and committing to a preferred future

Designing Developing prototypes, offerings and artifacts to achieve vision and goals

Adapting Enabling organizations to generate options to alternative futures

The model drew upon the framework that APF members helped develop for “Thinking about the Future” and “Framework Foresight.” One update was replacing the term “forecasting” with “futuring” to avoid confusion with non-futurist forecasting. Another was the addition of “designing,” with planning moved as a sub-competency. Finally, acting was renamed as adapting.

The model was a product of a task force of 23 futurists from 4 continents working on issues in professionalizing foresight. It was driven by a core team: Cornelia Daheim (Germany), me and Jay Gary (US), and Luke van der Laan (Australia) — I really enjoyed working with these folks. A great spirit of listening, understanding, sharing, and working toward solutions!

We followed the steps outlined in “A Guide for Developing Competency Models,” and accompanying tutorials from the Competency Model Clearinghouse website, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. The model is intended to demonstrate the recommended competencies that individuals preparing for or considering a futurist career ought to possess. They wrote up and posted a nice piece on our work.

We will, of course, revisit and update the competency model in the years ahead as needed. — Andy Hines

Save

by Andy Hines on December 13, 2016 Leave a Comment

Foresight classics: 20/20 foresight characterizes uncertainty

Not surprisingly, we discussed uncertainty during Futures Research class this semester. Hugh Courtney’s 20/20 Foresight: Crafting Strategy in an Uncertain World came up as we discussed frameworks for helping us understand strategy. We reviewed the summary graphic and moved on. But I made a note to revisit the book. The concept of 4 levels is helpful.

Courtney suggests scenario planning is a good fit for Levels 2 and 3 uncertainty. Agreed. Most foresight tools are indeed aimed at 2 and 3. I think we’d all agree that Level 1 uncertainty is an endangered species. Yet, that is where the traditional strategy tool is aimed: Porter’s 5 forces, market research, SWOT, benchmarking, NPV. He had little to suggest for what he terms the “rare” level 4 uncertainty. His description sounded most like backcasting.

What I need to think more about is where messes or wicked problems fit? I was tempted to say level 4, but are they truly ambiguous or uncertainty, or is just impossible to get agreement. If we take higher education as an example of a wicked problem. I think we could characterize a range of alternatives, but I don’t think we’d have much confidence in moving toward any of them.

For strategists, there are some helpful specifics around five types of strategic questions:

Shape or adapt?
Now or later?
Focus or diversify?
New tools and frameworks?
New processes for monitoring and updating strategies?

I am thinking about how we might include these questions in our Foresight Framework approach. We are constantly seeking to update and add options to our approach.

One quibble might be his definition of foresight as “an accurate view of the future.” I suppose it’s the word accurate. [see foresight and being right]. To offset the quibble, I liked the residual uncertainty is the uncertainty left after you have done your analysis; it’s not what you don’t know, but what you cannot know. It reminds me of Pierre Wack’s approach that sought to “convert” uncertainties to predetermineds where possible [my language not his]. I know that I sometimes get too enamored of uncertainty….I like the reminder that we should reduce where we can. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on November 30, 2016 Leave a Comment

Designing Foresight and Foresighting Design

I’m happy to share that my collaboration with [former] design student (and now Dr.) Danilo Zindato exploring the uses of scenarios by futurists and designers is now published. Danila spent a semester with the Houston Foresight program last all as part of her PhD work. She wanted to dig deeper into how futurists use scenarios and compare that with her experience in how designers use them. The piece we worked on for publication in World Future Review took the futurist perspective, as we assumed readers of this journal would be most interested in that. The publication piece at WFR is here; a pre-publication draft is here.

The premise is that foresight and design are growing closer together. The piece opens by providing examples of how that is showing up. It compares process frameworks and then looks more deeply at how designers are using scenarios, to derive implications for futurists. The conclusion notes the each field is feeling pressure to expand their scope and capabilities – foresight to go further downstream and designers to further upstream — and this will lead to more overlap and collaboration between the two in the future.

It is great to have a forum for these kinds of applied, practical pieces. Editors Jim Dator and Aubrey Yee have been repurposing World Future Review to provide a home for these pieces that has been missing in recent years. I strongly encourage fellow practitioners to submit their work here and help to establish and solidify a practitioner home base. — Andy Hines

Search Results for: framework foresight