Review of the book Foresight in Action: Pitfalls for foresight practitioners include: the paradox of policy-free scenarios ,misuse of the scenario-axes, the temptation to 'certainify' uncertainty, and escaping from historical determinism
Thinking about the future and practicing foresight is no cakewalk. This is made very clear in the book Foresight in Action. The authors have done ethnographic research on how foresight practitioners proceed in practice, with respect to the policy practice. The study took place at several Dutch ministries and planning agencies.
The research shows that, in practice, many choices are made that conflict with the theory of Foresight. In this post I try to summarize the authors’ findings into four pitfalls for foresight practitioners.
Pitfalls for foresight-practitioners:
1. How to deal with policy when you make future scenarios for policy makers?
Foresight practitioners and the (academic) literature seem to have accepted that to create future-proof -or 'robust'- policy, it is necessary to design future scenarios that are free of policy. This is closely related to a widely used tool to test policy, namely testtunneling. In this exercise, policy is checked against possible future worlds. The policy is the option that is tested and therefore not part of the instrument that performs the test. However, in practice, attempts to make policy- free scenarios fails. Most future explorers find a middle way and choose for example a ‘minimum differentiated policy’. Assumptions are made intuitively or are not made negotiable. This detracts from the quality of the process and the scenarios.
2. Are the scenario-axes used for the intended purpose?
The use of a two-dimensional coordinate system when creating scenarios is presented in many textbooks and literature as the standard method for making future scenarios. However, the authors of Foresight in Action remind us that working with a two-dimensional coordinate system is only suitable if two overwhelmingly strong driving forces are identified. On many issues, however, more than two overwhelming driving forces van be formulated. Nowadays, foresight practitioners often force themselves are a project group to find the two most overwhelming driving forces, to develop scenarios. These driving forces are then used in a framework with scenario-axes to design the scenarios. In addition, there is often confusion about the role of the scenario-axes: is it selected due to mechanical reasons, or ,for example, to process the group or to facilitate the presentation to the public? Often these questions are not sufficiently considered and the choices made are not justified.
3. Can you resist the temptation to ‘certainify’?
Foresight is often presented as the art or method to deal with uncertainties. Foresight practitioners often state they do not wish to 'predict' the future through numerical forecasts or trend extrapolation. In practice, foresight practitioners’ dealing with uncertainty is disappointing. During the foresight process, consciously or unconsciously, more and more uncertainties are artificially made certain: certainification. Certainification appears, for example, by numerical justifications or references to the past. This certainification ultimately leaves no more room for uncertainties in the exploration of the scenarios. And the question is to what extent the foresight exercise then helps in dealing with uncertainties.
4. How do you escape from historical determinism?
In the theory on foresight, there seems to be consensus on the assumption that historical determinism should be avoided in foresight. ‘The future is open’. However, in the process of foresight, historical determinism always seems to play a role. In perhaps the most "innocent" form it starts with the justification why it should be avoided in the first place. A common argument is: "In the '70s, no one would have believed that our society looks like it does now.” In doing so, we refer to the variability in the past to show that variability will apply in the future. However, it is more worrisome as the process progresses and choices are made in creating the scenarios. Different kinds of arguments are used to determine why certain reasoning or developments are not plausible or useful in a scenario. Often they refer to, and comparisons are made with past events. If these arguments are heeded, which often happens, the end result is a set of scenarios that suits today's world, rather than dealing with the uncertainties and images of the future.
Recommendations for foresight practitioners:
Below I briefly describe the recommendations made in the book, which I personally definitely take to heart. Remember that these findings apply to the use of scenarios and forecasting for policy rather than for business.
- The idea of policy-free scenarios should be let go. In practice it has been found that it is not possible to make policy-free scenarios, and therefore we should not pretend it could be done.
- As the requirement of policy free scenarios is associated with the method of testtunneling, there is also a need for an alternative to testtunneling. New ways should be found (or the old ways have to be adapted) to use scenarios.
- The scenario-axes must be rejected as an ideal way to create scenarios. It does not reflect the complexity of driving forces for contextual scenarios. New methods should be developed and evaluated.
- New methods should be developed and described in order better to deal with uncertainties in foresight and not to be tempted by certainification or giving into historical determinism when creating scenarios.
To be continued ...
This blog was also published on my website SilkeDeWilde.com
Essays and comments posted in World Future Society and THE FUTURIST magazine blog portion of this site are the intellectual property of the authors, who retain full responsibility for and rights to their content. For permission to publish, distribute copies, use excerpts, etc., please contact the author. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Future Society takes no stand on what the future will or should be like.
Free Email Newsletter
To sign up for Futurist Update, our free monthly email newsletter, enter your email in the box below and click Save.
The investment doesn't amount to a lot of dollars, a mere $1 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of billions and trillions that are the numbers associated with the fossil fuel industry, but New York State is on a path to increase solar capacity by 68%. This amounts to 214 Megawatts of new installations.
Energy storage prices are dropping fast. If you follow me, you’ve seen me write about this before. Energy storage prices have in fact been dropping exponentially for at least 25 years. Here’s a new piece of analysis – a model that uses a 20% learning curve per doubling to that project Li-ion batteries dropping to 5 cents per kwh round-tripped through them by ~2030.
The beleaguered nuclear power industry may soon have a good story to tell post-Fukushima. Lightbridge, a nuclear engineering company based in Virginia, is about to test a literal "twist" for fuel rods that can increase power yield by 10% in existing nuclear power plants with only minor modifications. And if the plants replace existing turbines with larger ones it would mean as much as a 17% increase in power output and incurring only an incremental investment without a major build.
The carbon capture and storage project at the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan is about to go live as reported in the press today. The project goal has been to eliminate 90% of the CO2 generated by the coal-fired power plant. Additions have cost $1.4 billion CDN, $115 million over budget, and represent what is believed to be the world's first commercial-scale CCS project to go live.
I occasionally do talks on future TV and I generally ignore current companies and their recent developments because people can read about them anywhere. If it is already out there, it isn’t the future.
Surely gardens are a place to get back to nature, to escape from technology? Well, when journalists ask to see really advanced technology, I take them to the garden. Humans still have a long way to go to catch up with what nature does all the time.
Cool is a concept that people understand instinctively and globally. It is not Carl Rohde who decides on his own what it the cool stuff on any subject; his eyes and ears are his students and associates. Rohde teaches on (almost) all continents. Part of his assignment is take photographs, describe what it is, and why it is cool. Select the best cool hunt of the week, and upload it to the cool hunting platform. The cool hunters rate each other's works. The items that have most potential will show up. The network of associates does pretty much the same thing, but there everyone has his own specialty.
In a recent issue of Globe and Mail, Canada's purported national newspaper, Janet McFarland wrote a piece on ethical investment describing the Montreal Carbon Pledge and the commitment being made by global funds to report the carbon pollution within their portfolios. Portfolio screening focused on environmental issues is a relatively new practice for fund managers. Carbon represents just one in a number of the risks being assessed. Water, land use, pollution, and waste are also measured against portfolios and policy decision making.