framework foresight | Hinesight....for Foresight

by Andy Hines on August 16, 2016 2 Comments

What is successful foresight?

I explored this question as part of my dissertation research a few years back from the perspective of the organizational futurist, that is, a futurist working internally for a single organization. While you can read the gory details in my dissertation, I’m happy to announce that a more user-friendly version has just been published in the Journal of Futures Studies: “Let’s Talk about Success: A Proposed Foresight Outcomes Framework for Organizational Futurists.”

I came at the question from my own experience as an organizational futurist for The Kellogg Company and the Dow Chemical Company, and from the perspective of a consulting and academic futurist helping futurists and organizations to start an organizational foresight function – whether companies, government agencies, NGOs, non-profits, etc. And spending many hours with colleagues in similar positions discussing various options.

To put it bluntly, I will be happy if we can simply start having better conversations about outcomes and success. Indeed the Foresight Outcomes Framework that I propose is quite simple and is primarily designed as a discussion starter with stakeholders and the boss. It can help to set expectations more appropriately. And it provides one with an alternative if the ROI imperative is introduced. My own personal view is to strongly avoid your success being tied toROI. My view of the organizational futurist role is that it is highly context-dependent, complex, intangible, messy. Sometimes it’s about learning; sometimes about making a decision; sometimes about making a thing! Sometimes all the above.

I am not suggesting that there be no measurement, but as I’ve watched projects pass through the meat grinder over several years, morphing several times, dying and rebirthing, I personally concluded that it is difficult if not impossible to come up with accurate ROI measure, but hats off to those who are trying, good luck, and indeed perhaps there is a way!

I won’t go into the details here. The article describes a guiding perspective (social constructionism) aimed at influencing the decision-making process (divided into learning, deciding, and acting), organized into a framework (described in the figure) and followed by implications, conclusions, and recommendations for further research. I’ll be interested in your comments! Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on June 29, 2016 Leave a Comment

Graphic of Houston Foresight Scanning Process

Our design expert on the Houston Foresight team, student Maria Romero, is at it again. After doing a beautiful job with updating the Framework Foresight process and cone, she turned her attention to our scanning process. The history of “our scanning process” merits a few comments. For years we have been teaching scanning with a minimal structure or process, noting the “arti-ness” of it (more art than science). It was always a bit unsatisfactory to get to that point, so a few years ago, I started looking for ways to bring more process and structure to our scanning. As always, we did the beta with students., and tinkered and adjusted, and maybe a year or so ago, I feel like we came up with a pretty solid process.

The quick-and-dirty explanation. We organized the scanning process into three steps: finding, collecting, and analyzing.

Finding involves the tools, sources, and terms for identifying the signals of change, i.e., scanning hits.
Collecting is about how to capture the hits. The old-fashioned spreadsheet is still an option, but we have been using cloud-based libraries. Our favorite is Diigo. They allow a team of remote folks (which is pretty much how every team works these days) to tag hits to a common library. Super-convenient!
Analyzing can be done at three levels (1) a simple triage (2) more detailed evaluation using two or three criteria, such as novelty, impact, credibility and (3) a much more involved multi-criteria and weighted index (for the true evaluation fanatics)

The graphic shows a couple of outputs — the “strong” signals of change feed the baseline forecast, and the “weak signals” provide ideas and inspiration for the alternative futures.

A tip of our collective hat to Maria for such a wonderful representation. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on May 17, 2016 Leave a Comment

Foresight Value Proposition

We were discussing the value proposition last week, as we often do on the APF listserv. I thought we’d discuss a couple of related propositions that we emphasize at the Houston Foresight program. The first is that we often think of ourselves as hyphenated or hybridized futurists. That is, we have combine our foresight expertise with something else. That may be subject-matter related, such as being experts in the future of energy, supply, intelligence, public policy, the environment, etc.

We also teach a basic approach to exploring the future of any topic using an integrated modular process called (Framework Foresight). We acknowledged that futurists are more differentiated at the front (framing, scanning, Futuring/scenarios). But as long as we’re capable on the back end (whatever that might be), I think we offer a nice value proposition in terms of being able to integrate the two. If you will, plugging the output of a foresight or scenario project into a “traditional” strategy process, for example, has often been pretty clunky in my experience, so we’re trying to smooth that transition with the back end of our framework (visioning, planning, acting). At the same time we acknowledge that the back end is evolving as well, whether it’s traditional strategy, or innovation, or policy analysis, or design or……The old days of pure foresight where we stopped at the forecast/scenarios/mapping are pretty much over (if they ever really existed). I think we are hybrids by necessity, but aware of where our differentiation lies – up front and in the integration w/ whatever the back is. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on April 26, 2016 Leave a Comment

Foresight for changing the world

We’re always exploring new things to teach at the Houston Foresight program. One topic that has come up a lot in recent years is social entrepreneurship. We salt some in – for instance, we teach a whole course on Social Change, and social entrepreneurs are creators of social change. but it would be really cool to put together an elective, or work in a dedicated module. We’ve had some students come to the program with social entrepreneurship aims in mind – as they see foresight as an enabler for them. And in discussing “what can I do with a foresight degree,” we increasingly discuss social entrepreneurship as an option.

I remember a presentation at one of Social Technologies old consortium meetings from Ashoka on the topic and remembered that we gave away a book for it. Lo and behold, sitting in my to-read pile was How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas.

The author, David Bornstein, provides an elegant blend of analysis and personal stories. He argues that “important social change frequently begs with a single entrepreneurial author.” And goes on to note that “one of the most important things that can be done to improve the state of the world is to build a framework of social and economic supports to multiply the number and the effectiveness of the world’s social entrepreneurs.” If so, shouldn’t we in foresight be doing our part?

The book makes the case that social entrepreneurship is spreading and gaining more influence. The demand for innovative approaches and supply of entrepreneurs are both going up. Chapters of the book tell the stories of social entrepreneurs supported by Ashoka, and also include analysis and lessons learned. I found the mix to be right on target – inspiration and practical advice together make a powerful combination.

I’d be very interested in more resources on social entrepreneurship – articles, websites, cases, examples – so that we can work more of it into the curriculum. Our vision suggests that foresight is a vital tool for helping to make the world a better place – supporting social entrepreneurship has to be an increasingly important part of that vision. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on September 25, 2013 Leave a Comment

The value add of foresight in understanding mapping and influencing the future

As promised in a recent post, some thoughts on the value-add of understanding, mapping, and influencing the future. I think it’s fair to assert that foresight provide value in terms of understanding the future. We help our clients think about the future with concepts such as alternative futures, the cone of plausibility, and the framework activities of framing, scanning, forecasting, visioning, planning, and acting – among others. We also bring in systems thinking, theories of social change, and other conceptual systems. The understanding work provides a theoretical underpinning to the more practical areas of mapping and influencing the future.

In the Houston Foresight program, mapping involves the three activities of framing, scanning, and forecasting. Here, too, I think it is fair to say that futurists provide clear value here to clients. One could argue that these activities are at the core of futurists’ expertise. We might be so bold as to say they are part of our core competence.

Matters get a little trickier in the influencing realm of visioning, planning, and acting. Sure, we are “good” at these activities, and we teach them in our Master’s and certificate programs. But are we clearly better at these than, if you will, non-futurists. I think it’s fair to say that this one is a matter of debate. (and part of that debate, which we won’t go into here, is how one defines “futurist”). Others teach and practice visioning, planning, and acting, and teach it well. It’s less clear, at least to me, that futurists are distinctly different here. One strategy might be to say, well, let’s just focus on where we are clear distinct: understanding and mapping, and leave influencing to others. But I, and I suspect many other futurists, would find that somehow not satisfying. Another strategy might be to rethink our value proposition in regard to these activities. So here goes…

First, I must give credit to fellow futurist Cecily Somers for this idea. She graciously volunteered to work with me over the course of a weekend in doing some visioning and planning work for the Houston Foresight program (and I must add that it was an amazing session!) She helped me see that perhaps the value-add isn’t necessarily in the influencing category per se, but in tying together the entire spectrum of understanding, mapping, and influencing. The value-add is our integrated approach to the three areas of understanding, mapping, and influencing. In other words, we are distinct in tying influencing to mapping and in turn to understanding. I hope that makes sense to y’all – it sure makes sense to me. That’s the bare bones – I suspect a more in-depth treatment is called for! Andy Hnes

by Andy Hines on July 22, 2013 Leave a Comment

Seven Lessons for Applying Foresight in Organizations

Much of my professional life has been motivated by the desire to help organizations make greater use of foresight. Early in my consulting career, working with Coates & Jarratt, Inc., I was surprised by how often our client loved our work, but did not know what to do with it internally. I spent almost a decade working inside two Fortune 500 companies in order to see for myself, and recently wrote my dissertation on the topic. At the recent APF Professional Development Seminar, I had a few minutes to summarize some “lessons learned” in applying foresight.

Lesson 1. Outsiders need insiders. Consulting futurists working from outside the organizations benefit from having a partnership with organizational futurists working inside – and vice versa. This partnership is critical as inside and outside perspectives together provide a wider view of the situation and increase the odds of the work being applied effectively.

Lesson 2. Foresight, as with any new capability, spreads from the periphery to the center . Foresight rarely starts from CEO mandate. “Someone” inside the organization, and it can come from almost anywhere, starts asking questions about the future and “infects” the organization with the foresight virus.

Lesson 3. Dive into the mosh pit with clients. The academic way of saying that is that foresight spreads through dialogue and the development of an internal discourse in a process of creating shared meaning. It’s not about the futurist conveying the wisdom that the organization “should” consume, but it’s about a negotiation process in which learning occurs (both ways), working toward mutual agreement.

Lesson 4. Resistance to change is normal. Can we stop complaining about resistance to change? From now, we get five slaps with a wet noodle if we get caught doing this. It is perfectly reasonable to prefer things stay the way they are, unless a more compelling proposition is offered – the burden is on us to make the more compelling proposition.

Lesson 5. Credibility is a big issue. It can be draining to always have to establish your credibility, but that is the context we are operating in, so we have to deal with it. Professional status could help.

Lesson 6. The work needs to get into the flow. One-off projects are good and helpful and get the message out there, but we need a way to keep the conversation going in-between. The work needs to be integrated into the organization’s regular work flows to have a lasting impact.

Lesson 7. Be prepared for the success discussion. We can wait for this question or proactively address it. I have offered simple outcomes framework that suggests working with futurists will help organizations learn about the future, make more informed decisions about the future, and catalyze future-oriented action. Whatever your story is, have it. My colleague Riel Miller, for instance, promises that clients will “ask better questions.”

Of course, you need not accept these lessons, but may respond in the spirit of working toward shared meaning 😉 Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on May 29, 2013 Leave a Comment

An Insider’s Guide to Foresight Consulting at World Future Society

I’m very pleased to offer the 2^nd annual “Insider’s Guide To Foresight Consulting” day-long workshop at the World Future Society General Assembly on Thursday July 18th in Chicago with my colleagues Riel Miller and Chris Carbone. This team should provide a real treat for audiences, as Riel and I did it ourselves last year and we’ve been fortunate to add Chris.

I, of course, have continued to split my time between teaching at the University of Houston’s Foresight Program and my consulting work via Hinesight. Riel is enjoying his position at the Director of Foresight at UNESCO after a long career as an independent consultant at Xperidox (among other things), and Chris oversees Innovaro, Inc.’s trend and foresight practice and manages its Global Lifestyles and Technology Foresight research projects. The different situations we come from and perspectives we bring should make for a rich experience for the audience. I really look forward to seeing this team in action.

We will cover similar ground as last year – from A to Z in foresight consulting — in which we blend together methods, tools, techniques, and case studies that range from basic diagnostic techniques to frameworks to subtle tips and insights learned from years of experience. And we’ll once again offer participants will have an opportunity to submit their own foresight projects for analysis by the instructor team. Hope you can join us! Andy

by Andy Hines on May 13, 2013 Leave a Comment

Foresight success?

I did a five-minute “Little Big” at the APF “Play” Gathering on May 3^rd in Orlando. I called it “A Framework for Discussing Success.” The ideas emerged from dissertation and I am planning to write a journal article on it, but for now here are the main ideas.

I reviewed the foresight literature to see what futurists have said about success. What I found was that the discussion of success included a mix of purposes, goals, and benefits along with ideas about success. I identified forty sources that touched on these themes in a significant way. One common theme was that foresight work is ultimately aimed at decision-making, specifically making “better” or more informed decisions about the future. As the figure shows, the decision-making process can be broken down into three components: learning, deciding, and acting. Learning is about providing information about the future that can inform decisions. Deciding is the making of a decision. Acting is taking action on the decision, because without action, it’s not really a decision, unless the decision was to take no action.

The aspects of success mentioned in the literature sorted nicely into these three categories (not show here for space reasons). What is shown is that the “backbone” of foresight work, that is, the six key activities of framing, scanning, forecasting, visioning, planning, and acting, feed into these three components of decision-making. Framing, scanning, and forecasting feed into learning; visioning and planning feed into deciding, and acting, of course, feeds into acting.

One way to interpret this framework is that most foresight work is aimed at learning, with a secondary focus on deciding, and a tertiary focus on acting. Put another way, most of our work goes into providing decision-makers with better information about the future to inform their decisions; sometimes they ask us to help with deciding (visioning and planning), and occasionally we help with acting.

My goal in developing this framework was two-fold: to see if we futurists can agree on a common framework for what successful work aims to achieve, and also to share with clients to set their expectations. If we can achieve that, we can then set about the logical follow-on task of exploring how to measure that success. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on February 6, 2013 2 Comments

Talking Points on Integrating Foresight into Organizations

I recently gave a webinar based on my dissertation on integrating foresight into organizations to an informal group of corporate futurists. I jotted down some notes beforehand, which I thought I’d share here.

Great to note that a “new” informal corporate foresight networks exists – I was part of such a group in the early 2000’s and also a regional version known as Michigan Futurists Network, of which I have very fond memories.
TATF (Thinking about the Future)” It’s very useful to have a consistent framework; all projects draw from similar activities and are then customized to particular clients and projects; it demystifies the process when your framework and explanation is consistent. It also helps you design “off-the-cuff.” I use the TATF, you can use whatever you prefer.
Spending your time. Invest your time wisely. Decide on your ideal balance between content, process, and education/culture change; depends on the situation in your organization — no one-size-fits-all formula.
Understand the larger process of how integration works – helps you envision progress toward your goal, and of course, suggests you have a goal. Positioning your capability/function is important, but what end is it serving? Be careful not to be too tactical and too project-focused
Permission foresight model suggests building credibility and capacity slowly and steadily; small success enables permission for more advanced project.
Think about success – what’s your elevator speech on that? You will be asked…..often.
To institutionalize….feed the sponsor, but put feelers out there with otherws; doing good work for others reflects well on your sponsor; viral model where clients are your best salespeople
Humility: be sure your sponsors know the impact you’re having, but don’t worry about public credit or “theft” of your ideas. Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on December 19, 2012 14 Comments

PhD: The Role of an Organizational Futurist in Integrating Foresight into Organizations

I am very pleased to be able to share that I’ve completed my PhD on “The Role of an Organizational Futurist in Integrating Foresight into Organizations.” I am very grateful to my advisor Jeff Gold at Leeds Metropolitan University for his brilliant guidance during the journey. I took the route of PhD by Published Works, which meant that I was able to synthesize, critique, and build off my previous published works around organizational foresight, and use it as a jumping off point to explore what’s new and what needs to be researched in the future. It has provided me with a rich agenda for future research.

The topic was certainly one of great interest to me. My ten years “inside” taught me a tremendous amount and I think has made me a much better consultant since then. And it obviously helps in teaching to be able to share firsthand experience on what it’s like trying to integrate foresight. The new research enabled me to broaden my perspective and approach, and come up with a few handy frameworks that I think will prove useful going forward. I really learned a lot and Jeff pushed me to bring in thinking outside of the foresight literature, which proved to be really valuable advice. I’ve already been applying what I’ve learned in my teaching and consulting.

For those who are interested in reading:

Hines Thesis submission without published works has just the “new”work
Hines Thesis submission final includes the published works as well.

Enjoy! Andy Hines

Search Results for: framework foresight