Leveraging the Future with Foresight Analysis

ABSTRACT

A broad array of Foresight Analysis techniques is available to help analysts and decision-makers anticipate the outcomes of current struggles in such places as Syria or North Korea or—over a longer time frame—to assess the impact of global climate change, trends in cyber warfare, new money laundering techniques, or the future of the Arctic. Business decision-makers as well as government policymakers can use Foresight Analysis to avoid surprise, map the future, mitigate threats, and identify new opportunities.

The best way to ensure the success of a Foresight Analysis project is to be explicit about the purpose of the exercise, adopt a team process, involve a diverse group of participants, engage senior decision-makers directly in the process, and generate a follow-on action plan. Explicit criteria based on client needs are important for selecting which scenarios are most deserving of attention. The development and tracking of a robust set of indicators for each alternative future is also critical to the process. Although Foresight Analysis requires a serious investment of time up front, the payoff always justifies the investment—and the payoff can be measured in years.

Resumen

Una amplia gama de técnicas de análisis prospectivo se encuentra disponible para ayudar a los analistas y los responsables de la toma de decisiones a anticipar los resultados de las luchas actuales en lugares como Siria o Corea del Norte o -en un marco de tiempo más amplio- para evaluar el impacto del cambio climático global, las tendencias en la guerra cibernética, las nuevas técnicas de lavado de dinero o el futuro del Ártico. Los responsables de la toma de decisiones empresariales, así como los responsables de la formulación de políticas gubernamentales, pueden utilizar el análisis prospectivo para evitar sorpresas, mapear el futuro, mitigar amenazas e identificar nuevas oportunidades. La mejor manera de garantizar el éxito de un proyecto de análisis prospectivo es ser explícito sobre el propósito del ejercicio, adoptar un proceso de equipo, involucrar a un grupo diverso de participantes, involucrar a los responsables de la toma de decisiones directamente en el proceso y generar un plan de acción de seguimiento. Los criterios explícitos basados ​​en las necesidades del cliente son importantes para seleccionar qué escenarios merecen más atención. El desarrollo y seguimiento de un conjunto robusto de indicadores para cada futuro alternativo es crítico para el proceso. A pesar de que el análisis prospectivo requiere una inversión importante de tiempo por adelantado, la recompensa siempre justifica la inversión y puede medirse en años.

KEYWORDS:

• Foresight
• scenarios
• intelligence
• strategic planning
• international conflict
• methodology
• Structured Analytic Techniques
• forecasting
• prediction

Palabras clave:

• Prospectiva
• Escenarios
• Inteligencia
• Planificación Estratégica
• Técnicas Analíticas Estructuradas
• Predicción

Notes

^1. This article represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to provide a succinct and practical roadmap for analysts seeking guidance on proven techniques for conducting Strategic Foresight Analysis workshops. Draft sections of this paper have been presented at annual conferences of the International Studies Association (ISA) and the International Association for Intelligence Education (IAFIE). Working drafts of the paper have been distributed to students as background reading material prior to attending training conducted by the author’s company, Globalytica, LLC.

^2. Cambridge Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/foresight.

^3. Wilner, Alex S. and Sven Schirmer. “Using strategic foresight to describe change in IR: The promises and pitfalls of a “soft” methodology,” presentation to the International Studies Association Annual Conference, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland.

^4. Peppler, Brett. “Dealing with the longer term in intelligence practice: The application of a foresight approach,” presented to the International Studies Association (ISA) Convention, February 2015, New Orleans, LA, United States.

^5. Pherson, Randolph H., Handbook of analytic tools and techniques, 4th ed., Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, 2016, p. 34.

^6. Dator, Jim. “What future studies is, and is not,” Hawaii Research Center for Future Studies, 1995.

^7. Bishop, Peter and Andy Hines. Teaching About the Future, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. See also Allenna Leonard with Stafford Bear.

^8. Wilner, Alex S. and Sven Schirmer. “Using strategic foresight to describe change in IR: The promises and pitfalls of a “soft” methodology,” presentation to the International Studies Association Annual Conference, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland, Figure Three,p. 5.

^9. Fred Polak’s classic work, The image of the future, published in 1973, is one of the earliest proponents of the need to conceptualize and construct positive visions of the future that benefit all humanity. Fred D. Polak, The image of the future, Elsevier, London, 1973. “The systems perspective: Methods and models for the future,” AC/UNU Millennium Project. 1994.

^10. Dator, Jim. “What future studies is, and is not,” Hawaii Research Center for Future Studies, 1995, p. 2.

^11. Dator, Jim. “What future studies is, and is not,” Hawaii Research Center for Future Studies, 1995, p. 1.

^12. Descriptions of Force Field Analysis and related Decision Support tools can be found in Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 11: Decision Support, p. 2015, 289. The Opportunities Incubator™ is described earlier in this paper.

^13. European Commission, “Models of horizon scanning: How to integrate horizon scanning into European research and innovation policies,” 12 October 2015, http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/v/de/publikationen/CU_ERL_PW_Models-of-Horizon-Scanning.pdf.

^14. Stares, Paul B. and Mona Yacoubian, Rethinking the war on terror: New approaches to conflict prevention and management in the post-9/11 world, Chapter 24, US Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, 2006. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/stares_yacoubian_terror.

^15. Hultunen, Elina. “Good sources of weak signals: A global study of where futurists look for weak signals,” Journal of Future Studies, 12:4, 2008. See also Dyer Harris and Steven Zeisler, “Weak Signals: Detecting the Next Big Thing,” Futurist, 36:6, 2002.

^16. Policy Horizons Canada, Module 5: Change Drivers, 2017.

^17. See Peter Bishop, Andy Hines, and Terry Collins, “The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques,” Foresight, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2007; Policy Horizons Canada, “Scenarios in the horizons foresight methods,” Module 6, 2017; Peter Padbury, “An overview of the horizons foresight method: Using system based-scenarios and the ‘inner game’ of foresight,” Policy Horizons Canada, 2017; and Alex S. Wilner and Sven Schirmer. “Using strategic foresight to describe change in IR: The promises and pitfalls of a “soft” methodology,” presentation to the International Studies Association Annual Conference, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland.

^18. Peter Padbury, “An overview of the horizons foresight method: Using system basedscenarios and the ‘inner game’ of foresight,” Policy Horizons Canada, 2017, p. 10.

^19. A fuller description of individual and group Brainstorming techniques can be found in Pherson, Randolph H., Handbook of analytic tools and techniques, Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, 2016, p. 102.

^20. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in conducting an Alternative Futures exercise, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 6: Scenarios and Indicators, 2015, p. 143.

^21. Schwartz, Peter. The Art of the Long View, New York, New York: Doubleday, 1996.

^22. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in conducting a Simple Scenarios exercise, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 6: Scenarios and Indicators, 2015, p. 139.

^23. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in conducting a Cone of Plausibility exercise, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 6: Scenarios and Indicators, 2015, p. 141.

^24. The Classic Quadrant Crunching technique was developed by Randolph H Pherson and is trademarked by Globalytica, LLC.

^25. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in conducting Classic Quadrant Crunching, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 5: Idea Generation, 2015, p. 122.

^26. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in conducting a Multiple Scenarios Generation workshop, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 6: Scenarios and Indicators, 2015, p. 144.

^27. The Foresight Quadrant Crunching technique was developed by Randolph H. Pherson and is trademarked by Globalytica, LLC.

^28. For a more detailed description of the steps involved in Foresight Quadrant Crunching, see Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis, 2^nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press/SAGE Publications, Chapter 6: Scenarios and Indicators, Chapter 5: Idea Generation, 2015, p. 128, and Randolph H. Pherson, Handbook of Analytic tools and techniques, 4^th ed. Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, 2016, p. 39.

^29. A robust discussion of the processes analysts can use to generate, validate, and evaluate the diagnosticity of indicators can be found in Randolph H. Pherson and John Pyrik, Analyst’s guide to indicators, Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, LLC, 2016.

³⁰ A shorter description of Indicators Generation and Indicators Validation can be found in Randolph H. Pherson, Handbook of analytic tools and techniques, 4^th ed., Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, LLC, 2016, p. 39–41.

^31. See “Causality-Inus-Conditions” at science.jrank.org.html at “http://science.jrank.org/pages/8545/Causality-Inus-Conditions.html”> Causality–Inus Conditions < /a > .

^32. The Opportunities Incubator technique was developed by Randolph H. Pherson, Mary O’Sullivan, and Oliver Gnad and is trademarked by Globalytica, LLC.

^33. A fuller description of the Opportunities Incubator can be found in Randolph H. Pherson, Handbook of analytic tools and techniques, 4^th ed., Reston, VA: Pherson Associates, LLC, 2016, p. 42.