framework foresight | Hinesight....for Foresight

by Andy Hines on February 1, 2023 1 Comment

UMI: The basic components of exploring the future

If you decided to take the plunge and come to UH for foresight education, what do you get? Or perhaps more fundamentally, what are the basics of foresight education? I like UMI: understanding, mapping, and influencing the future.

To explore the future of a domain or topic, our Framework Foresight process uses a simple two-phase breakdown: mapping and influencing.

Mapping, the first three steps of a project are about crafting the map of the futures, typically a set of scenarios. Influencing, the second three steps are about designing an approach or path to navigating that future landscape. Let’s not forget understanding. We apply theories of social change, we have a basic understanding of systems thinking, we use critical thinking to challenge assumptions, we use integral thinking to put together holistic designs or solution, and so on. Our mapping and influencing work is fundamentally information by our understanding of core futures concepts.

Another way to illustrate is to think of ourselves as explorers. Space may be the final physical frontier, but the future is an ongoing conceptual frontier. We are explorers of the unknown frontier of the future. What do explorers do? They draw a map (mapping) and they craft their route (influencing). But first they have to decide what to explore, what tools to bring, and what to watch out for (understanding).

The field and its practitioners have developed and borrowed a wide-ranging toolkit for doing mapping and influencing, and lots of concepts, models, and framework for understanding the future.

At Houston Foresight, our mission is to bring more high-quality foresight to the world. Our primary way of doing that is training Master’s students. They get the full treatment. They are drilled relentlessly in understanding, mapping, and influencing the future. We want them, once they leave us, to be able to go to client organizations, and immediately begin work on helping to improve the quality of their foresight work. In some cases, it is “upgrading” what the client is already doing. In other cases, it is bringing in a systematic foresight approach for the very first time.

We also do week-long boot camps that introduce people to the future. We give them the basics of understanding, mapping, and influencing the future. We do not expect that this week prepares anyone to be a full-time practitioner, rather it is intended to raise awareness of the work ahead. It is a first step or introduction. It alerts their organizations about the availability and hopefully the value of systematic high quality foresight work.

We also do foresight work with actual paying clients for two main reasons: first, it provides real-world experience for our masters’ students and second, it shows the clients the value of foresight work – in most cases we are working with organizations new to foresight. One might add a third benefit is that it enables us to test and tweak our approach to the future.

That’s the basics. There is more, but if you want a shorthand, it’s UMI (understanding, mapping, and influencing the future). – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on January 11, 2023 Leave a Comment

A system for scanning and monitoring

If you ask a group of futurists about the most fundamental skill for being a futurist, horizon scanning would probably be #1 or close to it. Identifying signals of change is an essential aspect of foresight work. Over the years, I have either done scanning for clients or occasionally helped them set up their own scanning systems.

But what about monitoring??? We have tried. And mostly … failed.

Where scanning and monitoring shows up in the basic Framework Foresight process. It can be integrated into a project or be a separate stand-alone activity.

Let’s first be clear about what I mean by a “scanning and monitoring” approach. Together. Here’s the logic. A key deliverable of a scanning system is to identify emerging issues (issues framed very broadly as threats, opportunities, drivers, disruptions). Let’s say we identify 6-12 emerging issues in a year worthy of some attention. We can and should devise action options, but in many cases we need to “monitor” an issue that isn’t quite ripe for attention yet. What happens most of the time is that it simply falls off the map. We move on to scanning for the next set of issues. Or if it’s project-based work, the team goes back to their day job.

What if, however, we set up a simple system for tracking the emerging issues we identified? We set up such a system with our friends at the US Forest Service a few years back. They have been talking about their work with the larger forest community, which has generated interest. This led to an opportunity for me share to share our work with CERM (Catskill Environmental Research & Monitoring Conference). The conference theme was ‘What could the Catskills look like in 50 years?’ Most of the presentation before me were very technical – these were in-the-field foresters! I was worried, frankly, that my pitch A system for scanning and monitoring the future of forests would be seen as impractical. To my surprise, they really liked it. They were engaged, we had fun with it, and they got the idea.

The key point is that there is a way to tack on a monitoring supplement to the horizon scanning system that is not too onerous in terms of time, and can be folded into existing scanning work. This first step is to ingrain the habit of continuous monitoring. There will be more to come, like how and when to spring into action when there is movement into an issue. I get asked about what’s a next development or next big thing in futures. At the top of my list is that we get much better at monitoring, wait … scanning AND monitoring. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on December 28, 2022 2 Comments

Understanding, Mapping, and Influencing the Future

What do we teach about the future? What does one need to know to be an effective futurist? The six steps of our basic Framework Foresight methodology, based on the APF Foresight Competency model competencies, divide a project into two phases, mapping and influencing.

The mapping phase, including framing, scanning, and futuring, is about crafting a map of the future of the domain you are exploring. The simple logic is that if you were going to explore any new territory, you would want a map (whether physical or GPS). If there isn’t a map, as is the case with the future, you need to draw one.

The map is a tool for helping you to influence your future. Where do you want to go? Why? When? How? The map doesn’t tell you which way to go – even a GPS needs to be told what the destination is. What’s our vision, our strategy for getting there, and what do we actually want to do in the future?

Finally, understanding relates to the why? Why explore this space and why do want a particular preferred future? We need a theoretical grounding that guides the mapping and influencing. This includes, among other things, our view of social change, an understanding of systems thinking, and ability to think creatively, critically, and integrally.

If you want some more on methodology, the video explores some tips for exploring the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUsqAlzTtks — Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on September 8, 2021 Leave a Comment

The unbreakable rule: Know your audience

In foresight, rules are made to be broken. Futurists are rule-breakers by nature. We do have some rules at Houston Foresight. For instance:

We do teach a core method, Framework Foresight, although it is designed to be modular and incorporate other techniques.
We do have a set of 12 Steps for Futurists modeled on the self-help movement.
And we have our Eight Rules of Houston Foresight Club modeled on Fight Club,

These, and other rules, are breakable. But we have one rule that we cannot break: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

This sacred rule trumps all others. Everything we do is in service of the client at hand (and we define client broadly – humanity is often the client). Here’s our shorthand for the “typical” foresight audience:

Bridge Builders are the frogs that can live on the land of corporate politics and the sea of futures work. These are our most valuable friends, out translators that can frame our message in a way that gets people interested and into action.
True believers are the lemmings who will follow us enthusiastically. We need nourish our true believers and go into battle side-by-side with them. But we must be careful not to mistake their voice or views for that of the mainstream organization or we all go over the cliff together.
Laggards are the vultures who will never like our message and probably not like us either. They are circling around and waiting for us to fail. We can’t convert them, the best we can do is use or frogs to work around them.
Fence-sitters are the rats (very sweet pets, BTW) who will support our ideas if they “smell the cheese” or they will be first off our sinking ship. They are by far the biggest audience and primary target. They often don’t give a hoot about foresight, but want to know if our ideas and proposals will benefit them and/or the organization.

This post came up during project discussions with a client where we kept coming up with new process ideas, and we got a little concerned about breaking rules, and we decided, that as long as we keep our eye on the unbreakable rule of “Know Your Audience” we are okay. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on July 27, 2021 1 Comment

HAT: Houston Archetype Technique

For several years I’ve been challenging audiences to take up the dissertation-worthy question of whether there is a typical pattern in how archetype scenarios unfold. In my work, I am increasingly persuaded it is the case, but of course those pesky clients seem to prefer evidence over my intuition (the nerve!). So, I’ve enlisted a crack team of two grad students – Heather Benoit, Lavonne Leong — and an alum Denise Worrell from the Houston Foresight program to help me tackle it.

Oh my, this is a rich topic. It’s made us think about a lot of things. At the most basic level it’s made us rethinking our version of the archetype technique. We have been using a customized version of Jim Dator’s Archetype technique that I first used with the help of Mark Justman of the Foresight Alliance back in 2007. We have been continuously tweaking and updating it – see Evolution of Framework Foresight. And we’re at it again!

The sneak preview of the HAT (Houston Archetype Technique) in the sketch below shows the hypothesized flow of a typical domain through the Three Horizons. We believe the most “typical” pattern is that we start with the Baseline, them move to either Collapse or New Equilibrium, and then to Transformation.

One thing we are clearly changing once and for all. Jim’s technique begins with a Continuation scenario. Our begins with the Baseline. For years we have been hyphenating, going back and forth, and generally confusing people by using both terms. Henceforth, we will just use Baseline!

Simple, right? We’ll see. Stay tuned. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on January 12, 2021 Leave a Comment

Scenario Based Strategy

I am still hunting for strategy books that team up with – or at least consider – foresight. I reviewed Thinking in Bets not too long ago. Next in line is Paul De Ruijter’s Scenario Based Strategy. It came out in 2014, and was nominated as a candidate for an APF Most Significant Futures Works Award in 2015. And a handful of recommendations. It’s one of those books that is on the pile longer than it should be. When I read a foresight book these days, I am looking for three things:

Confirmation is what I’m teaching and doing is useful?
Support are there new insights or evidence that build on what I’m teaching or doing?
Differences: do I need to be teaching or doing something else?

Confirmation

The author spent six months at Shell and they allowed him to write his Master’s Thesis on how Shell used scenarios to develop strategy. The book lays out the process in a clear and useful way. The diagram sums it up:

Being primarily in the education business these days, I am eager to bring new and different ways of doing and applying foresight work for me and my students. Looking at Du Ruijters’s graphic, it is easy to see the structural similarities with our Framework Foresight Cone.

Support

To help us calibrate the difference between some of the three-month projects we do and the gold-standard Shell scenarios, check this out: Du Ruijters notes that the 1992 Shell scenarios involved more than 30 man-years of work. Yep, not a typo!

And I love this. He brings in Schopenhauer’s observation saying that each new truth knows three phases: (1) ignored or ridiculed (2) vigorously opposed, and (3) self-evident.

Difference

I found his use of options to be something a bit different. We do use the term options as following implications (as de Ruijters does). But I like how he characterizes them:

Some options are relevant and feasible in every scenario, which is future-proof
Some options are successful under certain circumstances (call options)
Some are better to stop if certain conditions occur (put options)

He then advocates evaluating each option in all four scenarios created, using a simple plusses (++ or +) and minuses (– or -) or a zero (neutral) against; or he also suggests putting probabilities on the scenarios and doing calculations. I’m not a fan of that approach, but I like the idea of more formally creating the grid of options and sorting them into the “future-proof, call, and put categories. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on January 5, 2021 2 Comments

Scenario archetypes across 3 horizons

When we explain our four archetype scenarios, often someone will ask whether there is a pattern in how the four archetypes unfold, i.e., is there a typical progression or order? My response has been – we think so, but we can’t prove it. Finally, we’re going to try! My students Lavonne Leong, Monica Jamaluddin, and Heather Benoit are taking the plunge with me.

In our core Framework Foresight process, when we get to alternative futures/scenarios, we use four archetypes as shapes or patterns of change that can be used to map the future of any domain.

We start with the baseline future (aka Continuation) that projects the current system, or way of doing things, forward without any major disruptions of surprises. This is of course Horizon 1 (H1).
We finish with the transformation future, the new system that eventually replaces the old baseline. This is Horizon 3 (H3).

To recap, we have the baseline as Horizon 1 and transformation as H3.

So, how do get from H1 to H3? Via the Horizon 2 (H2) zone of transition. Our starting hypothesis is that there are two major types of transitions from H1 to H3.
- Collapse: the baselines systems fall into a collapse or highly dysfunctional state, which eventually leads to its replacement by a new system (the H3 transformation)
- New equilibrium: the baseline is challenged or disrupted and responds to “save itself.” It is frightened by potential magnitude of H3 transformation change, and makes as little change as possible as it seeks to maintain the integrity of the current baseline system. This is a more gradual approach to H3 transformation, in which the New Equilibrium scenario is a gradual transition space on the way to eventual transformation.

Foe example, in the graphic, we start with the baseline of Good to Go in H1, and eventually get to New Frontier in H3. But does it go via H2 Breaking Orbit, which follows New Equilibrium, or does it go via H2 Failure to Launch, which is the collapse archetype?

The research will involve identifying domains that have historical sets of scenarios that we can track and see if or how they mapped to the archetypes and the three horizons. For instance, if we go back twenty years and look at a set of scenarios that projected on the future of work, and compare it to how the future of work actually unfolded. Did it follow the archetypes? Did it move along the three horizons? Did it unfold via archetypes that follow along the three horizons? (jackpot) — Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on June 5, 2020 Leave a Comment

Houston’s 2020 APF Student Recognition Program winners

It is a great pleasure to announce that Houston Foresight Master’s student Miranda Mantey won 3^rd place in the Individuals Master’s category for the year’s APF Student Recognition Competition. Miranda received a Certificate of Achievement and a one-year student membership in APF as her prize. She entered her Framework Foresight project on “The Future of CRISPR-cas9.” Miranda look at the role of regulation in shaping this transformation technology and in particular focused on “To what extent will CRISPR be utilized as a medical and cosmetic therapy?

Miranda identified key drivers and explored how they might play out using the Scenario Archetype approach. Below is a snapshot of the drivers in the Transformation scenario.

Our second winner was in the Team Master’s Category, where the team of Hannah Kim, Tim Murphy, Tom Rau, Jonathan Torres won second place for their project “Gumby’s Uncertain Future.” It was carried out for World Futures class. The team envisioned a collapse version of the global future in 2035, using the Gumby character to describe how life would be different.

You can also view the other excellent Houston entries:

Nina Frankowski, The Future of Parenting
Clay Bunyard, The Future of Organizational Creativity

by Andy Hines on June 19, 2019 3 Comments

A Futurist Journey to Thailand

I’m about to finish up a wonderful month-long visit to Bangkok on a Fulbright Specialist Grant. The Thai Office of Higher Education Commission, Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy asked me to come help futurize their internationalization strategy. If you’re like me, you might wonder exactly what that means: the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education (link). [An interesting side note is that experts in internationalization have been struggling for years to agree on a definition….sound familiar, futurists?]

As a professional futurist for almost thirty years now, I have explored the future of hundreds of topics. It is always exciting, and a bit scary, to dive into a new topic. Fortunately for me, my hosts were well prepared to assist me. I received a detailed itinerary for my month-long stay, which looked a bit daunting, but as I went through the first few activities, I quickly became comfortable and looked forward to the next visit. I was also greeting with a good-sized stack of research on internationalization and the good work that OHEC/BICs has been doing for many years now. I felt that I would have plenty of material and experiences to draw upon to aid my exploration of the future of internationalization. I am using our Framework Foresight process, supplemented with a series of visits and interviews. I’ve identified a set of working issues that I’ve been testing with the experts and staff.

A few observations on the “state of the future” in Thailand. I think there is a growing desire for futures thinking, but it is not yet well developed in the country. I’m already in discussions about another project on the future of Thailand, and I sense a great opportunity to develop a futures community here. The main challenge, which I’ve seen in several countries that I’ve visited over the years, is developing the mindset for futures thinking. Thailand has a very polite culture. One pays respect to elders and superiors and frankly, it is not easy to challenge established ways of thinking and doing. Of course, this critical or challenging mindset is fundamental to good futures work. Indeed, a starting point when using Framework Foresight is to challenge the established baseline future. It will take some time to develop the culture to the point where this kind of thinking is okay.

I should also mention the tremendous support provided onsite by my hosts at the OHEC/BICS. I feel so welcomed and honored by them, and everywhere I’ve gone I’ve been struck by the kindness and graciousness of the Thai people. And I must also thank the Fulbright Specialist Program for making this opportunity happen. I am already looking forward to my next visit. – Andy Hines

by Andy Hines on March 14, 2018 Leave a Comment

Introducing the Future

I’m sure there a mixed feelings at a conference when it’s time for the futurist session.

What is a futurist anyway?
This might be fun!
Is this going to be some gee-whiz technology celebration? Or an environmental gloom-and-doom story?
Is this going to be relevant at all to my job?
What time is lunch?

I’ve done my share of conference talks, workshops, and all sorts of venues where I’ve been responsible for introducing people to the future. For this post, I’ll share where I’ve landed on a generic approach the keynote/short workshop. The basic components in roughly equal modules

A few concepts/tools for thinking about the future (e.g., Framework Foresight, Three Horizons)
Two to four content modules of drivers and/or potential disruptors/discontinuities. Each module consists of a brief review of 5 or 6 items, followed by “table talk” in which participants rank them for impact and identify implications; then on to the next module and table talk, etc. The implication can be very simple or with more time we might do a futures wheel
“What’s it mean/what might we do” wrap; time permitting, might have them do elevator speech responses; or show of hand votes, or just me distilling what I heard.

This seems to work well for the audience, a mix of tool, content, and process. And it’s more fun for me, too.

What sparked this post [and maybe at some point a deeper look into the “Introducing the Future” topic…] was that my friends at the Society for Marketing Professional Services recently published a write-up of a session along the lines that I described above: Don’t Be Surprised by the Future: ©Marketer, The Journal of the Society for Marketing Professional Services, February 2018, www.smps.org.

I’m curious to hear how you’ve been introducing the future to people!!! – Andy Hines

Search Results for: framework foresight