The Emerging Fellows Programme

This week we completed the third of the Emerging Fellows programmes. We are now set to start on the fourth. The change over between programmes gives us an opportunity to reflect upon what we are doing and to consider what it is that we seek to achieve with the programme. 

Starting from the beginning, the current version of the programme - there was a previous version of the programme before we became involved - aims to provide an element of practice based work experience for early stage futurists. We do this through a sequence of curated writing that grows into a catalogue of work over the course of the year. The European Futures Observatory operates the programme in conjunction with the Association of Professional Futurists. The APF has the digital publication rights for the work produced - which is published on the APF web site - and EUFO has the print publication rights, which it exercises in an annual publication of the work in book form.

This arrangement has worked well over the past three years. However, as we enter the fourth year of operation, it is time to place the programme in a wider context. This wider context will help us with one of the problems arising from the programme. Each year, the Emerging Fellows who successfully complete the programme are left with the question of what to do next. Over the years, some of the cohorts have stayed in touch with each other and the issue of what comes next remains in abeyance. If we step back to take a wider view, perhaps that might help us answer this question?

In thinking about this, we have found the APF Foresight Competency Model to be quite useful. The development of competency in foresight speaks to what we are looking to achieve in the programme. The model establishes three foundational areas of competency - personal effectiveness, academic knowledge, and workplace experience - before considering the foresight technical competencies. In a roundabout way, we have also found that place.

Admission to the programme is now through a competitive entrance. This is simply because we don't have enough places available for all applicants. The entrance asks for a written submission to accompany a CV. In the written submission, we are looking for evidence of the three foundational competencies and make our decisions accordingly. We are not an academic institution, so we tend to downplay the academic competencies and highlight the workplace competencies. The scheme of curated writing within the programme aims at delivering a practical application of the foresight technical competencies. We aim to keep the technical workings concealed because our intended readership aren't interested in these nuts and bolts. They just want to receive the end product.

So far, so good. But what next? In the competency model there is a fifth stage - foresight sector competencies. This has three branches - the academic world, the organisational world, and the world of practice. It is this latter category that interests us. There is scope to develop the programme further in the world of consulting through a joint branding and a joint operations exercise. We have stumbled along this route already, but we need to give it a more defined shape and purpose.

The Emerging Fellows in the 2020 programme, along with some of the Emerging Fellows from the 2018 and 2019 programmes, have taken to gaming as a means to unlock the future. We have reported fully on two previous games - one examining the future of the Arctic and one examining the future of Central Asia - and this seems a rich vein to mine a bit further. We can do this in a number of ways - different subject areas, different gaming formats, and introducing different players. We plan to formalise a programme around this in the near future.

There is also a desire amongst some former Emerging Fellows to continue writing. Some want to continue their topics from their programme of study. Some want to examine the roads not taken during their programme of study. And some want to examine topics completely unrelated to their programme of study. All of them see further writing as a means to enhance their professional reputations. It is our intention to harness this desire by launching a new foresight magazine in 2021. The magazine will accept submissions from other than Emerging Fellows, but this ought to be seen as an expansion of the programme.

Now that we can see the direction of travel - deeper into the fifth competency - we can also see the destination ahead. In the fullness of time, there would be scope for the group to bid for and deliver joint projects together. We haven't reached that point just yet, but we can see the time when we will.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020

Is There A Gold Standard For Foresight?

One of the problems with foresight is time. Most foresight work takes years, sometimes decades, to be fully work through. Despite this, there is a need to know in the present if a particular project was a worthwhile venture. The desire to appreciate a particular piece of foresight leads us to ask if there is some form of Gold Standard for foresight? An ideal piece of work against which any given piece could be judged. And if there is, what would that ideal piece of foresight look like? More importantly, based on the Gold Standard, could we reverse engineer a piece of foresight to ensure that we can consistently produce good work?

We can appraise foresight from one of two perspectives. First, there is the internal value of a piece of foresight. In this case, the exercise provides value because it was a project that was worth doing in itself. Alternatively, we could view the piece of foresight from an external perspective. In this case, the foresight would be worth doing because we can appraise it as a thing of beauty. There are a number of points to touch upon here.

To begin with, foresight produces a work of art rather than a scientific calculation. The calculation of the future belongs more with forecasting, which has a place in foresight, but not as an end result. A key axiom of foresight is that there is more than one possible future and a good foresight project will capture this plurality of futures. Like most works of art, foresight can be appreciated as the result of a series of techniques, which leans more towards the internal appraisal of foresight. Equally, a piece of foresight could be appreciated as a resultant totality, in which case we would be taking more of an external appraisal of the piece of foresight. Sometimes, these approaches can generate a sharp contrast.

For example, there are those who maintain that - in order to be a good piece of foresight - reference has to be made to certain issues. One that commonly is encountered is climate change. Climate change is important, but should it be present in all pieces of foresight? Perhaps not. Alternatively, there are those who insist that the issue of civilisational collapse is included in all works of foresight. Once again, this is an important issue, but perhaps not an all-consuming issue? 

In my view, these positions are a little too prescriptive for my liking. To put this another way, I am reluctant to with-hold the validation of a foresight project simply because it does not adhere to a subjective frame of reference. Like most subjective frames of reference, these are often held quite violently by their adherents. In my view, this is an extremist position. I know that it's hard to think of futurists as Jihadists, but some can be over their respective beliefs.

My own view is that the validation of foresight should stem from the internal logic of a piece of foresight. To begin with, it needs to be well crafted technically - using the right tool - to the right level of maturity, and answering the question set rather than the question that ought to have been set. We may have to wait some time to be able to appraise the utility of the particular work, but we can discern early clues as to it's validity. Is it internally consistent? Does it answer the question asked? Was the right tool used? For an appropriate time horizon? Does it fit in with broadly similar - but independent - works of foresight? Has it provided a set of milestones into the future by which we can determine which outcome events are tending towards? If all of these elements are there, then the chances are that valid results have been produced.

I'm not sure that there is a Gold Standard for foresight. To me that suggests too prescriptive a framework that merely reinforces a conventional wisdom. There are a number of conviction futurists who would disagree with me on this point, but I would suggest that their convictions are blinding them to the possibility that they might be wrong. I am of the view that there are any number of possible futures that we might experience and that there is no single way to unlock those futures. For this reason, there can be no Gold Standard.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020

The Terrible Twins (Again)

The pandemic has caused some degree of disruption to most economies in the world, much as every crisis does. Equally, not every economy has been affected in an even and consistent way. Some countries have been affected worse than others. Some economies have bounced back better than others. The intensity and duration of the disruption is influenced heavily by differing social and political conditions, which reflect the underlying cultural norms of the different societies. As the pandemic progresses, we can already start to see the contours of an emerging future. It allows us to speculate about how that may develop as time goes on.

COVID originated in the Far East and these societies were the first to react. The initial reaction was one of literally shutting down society and economic activity as far as possible. By and large, this strategy proved to be successful, mainly because the societies involved normally contained a relatively high degree of central control. As the virus spread across Europe and North America, various governments reacted with varying degrees of competence. This meant that the virus was not quite as well contained as it had been in the Far East. The effect of this was to keep economic activity at lower levels than had been experienced previously.

The governments in Europe and North America responded to the economic deep freeze in the private sector with a very large fiscal stimulus. The method varied from nation to nation, but the intention was similar - to keep afloat households during a period of acute reductions in earnings. In Europe, the main intention was to fund employers so that they could continue to pay salaries. In the US, the main strategy was to pay the economic actors directly - funds paid to companies to support profits and to households to cover their expenses.

This is where things start to get interesting. A good percentage of the stimulus funds were saved, both by households and corporates. Both sectors have increased their holdings of precautionary balances - their 'rainy day money'. However, not all of the stimulus has been saved and consumption - especially the consumption of on-line sales - has held up. This has had an interesting impact on the foreign balance. On the one hand, reduced levels of economic activity in the US has held back exports, whilst, on the other hand, the fiscal stimulus has helped to pull in greater levels of imports. Especially imports from China. As a corollary, Chinese sales into the US has helped to increase economic activity in China to such a degree that China can actually expect economic growth this year.

We have now reached a point where the US has seen the return of the twin deficits - the external deficit and the fiscal deficit - and is now reliant upon a net inflow of finance to sustain these. This is of very great significance because it is marking a point at which the US moves from being a creditor nation to becoming a debtor nation. Potentially, this is not a happy place for America.

It could be possible that the US attempts to address these deficits, However, the consequences would be somewhat untoward. The fiscal deficit could be addressed through a large increase in taxation, but that would risk capital flight. Alternatively, spending could be pared back. But where? Defence? Social programmes? These choices presume a political system in broad agreement, whereas we see one that is largely gridlocked. The future prospects are even worse. As America ages, then, if the political promises for pensions and healthcare are to be maintained, then the fiscal deficit will grow even further than it is today.

All of this is dependent upon the willingness of overseas actors to finance the debt. That would suggest the continued support of the rules based economic infrastructure that supports such financing. In which case, the scope for addressing the external deficit becomes much more limited. The two are linked. For example, President Trump's trade war with China and the resultant imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods had two effects. First, China retaliated by imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on American goods entering China. Second, with more subtlety, Chinese surpluses with the US are no longer recycled into US Treasuries. They are channelled into emerging market sovereign debt. This is a potential problem for the US that could have a significant impact upon the future.

It would seem that the twin deficits are likely to be a feature for some time to come. At this point we might ask what that means? We take the view that this is a situation broadly analogous to that of Great Britain a century ago. From the British perspective, it marked the start of a half century of decline. Relative decline at first, and then absolute decline. If we are right, then we ought to start thinking about what might be the American equivalent of the Suez Crisis and look out for the formative elements in mid-century. A more interesting question revolves around how Washington would react in the face of a national humiliation? The pandemic has accelerated this process, which was under way at the start of the year, but it is an interesting consequence of COVID-19.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020

Does Foresight Provide Value?

The fact that people are employed as futurists - either within an organisation or as consulting futurists - suggests that there is some value within foresight. Surely the market for foresight would be absolutely flat if no value were to accrue? However, not all foresight does provide value. If it did, then the use of foresight would be far more widespread than it is today. We might ask from where that value originates. We need to start with examining why people want to have an insight into the future. This will help us to determine what foresight can offer and what it can't offer. It also gives us clues about what the utility of foresight might be, which shapes how it is best used.

Foresight is a close cousin to uncertainty. Indeed, the market for foresight is closely correlated to the degree of uncertainty experienced within the working environment. During settled periods where the future is much the same as the present, the need for insights into the future are far less than periods where the operating environment appears to be chaotic. If the future were to be much the same as the present, then that would be a reasonable working assumption for the decision making framework. If on the other hand, we have no idea how the future will roll out, then having an edge to cut through that uncertainty is likely to lead to better decisions in the present. That is the core value proposition of foresight. Good foresight will assist in making better decisions about an uncertain future.

The value proposition is evident, but the delivery of foresight can vary a great deal. We previously explored the possibility that foresight might not work because a project might be poorly constructed. We reviewed the Foresight Maturity Model and the Foresight Competency Model as the bases from which we could take a view. In many respects, these represent the supply dimension of foresight. A given project may provide poor value because it was poorly constructed. There may also be shortcomings on the demand side, leading to a sense that poor value was delivered.

It is important to bear in mind what foresight can do and what it cannot do. Good foresight can highlight a range of possible future situations in which we might find ourselves. It does not predict the future, it explores a range of possible futures. This is, perhaps, the biggest mismatch between the expectations of foresight and what is actually delivered. If this occurs, usually it is a sign of a poor foresight practitioner, who hasn't taken the time to ensure that a client understands what foresight can do and what it cannot do. However, even if client expectations for a project have been well managed, it could still go off the rails because the wrong tool is selected for the job.

There are two dimensions to tool selection - selecting the appropriate level of maturity required for the project and selecting the right techniques to deliver the project. There is a temptation to over-promise on a foresight project. The temptation to promise, say, a world class project, but to then allocate an ad hoc budget to deliver it. This is a recipe for disappointment. Generally speaking, the higher the level of project required, the more human input and time it will take. Consequently, good world class projects are far more expensive - in cash terms - than ad hoc projects. It is tough for the practitioner to tell the client - either internal or external - that when they pare back the budget, they are reducing the degree of maturity the resultant project can hope for.

Equally important as setting the right degree of maturity for a project is selecting the right tools to deliver it. For example, a project that sets out to provide a set of scenarios that delivers a set of trends is bound to disappoint. Equally, a project based  around the exploration of a 2x2 scenario matrix ought to raise eyebrows if it only delivers three scenarios. I have seen these in the past.

The right tools for the job can be found in the terms of reference for the project, which is why it is important to set these out clearly at the start of the project. Even more than that, the terms of reference ought to be bounded by the original project deliverables. This is a case of having a clear view of what a project is setting out to achieve before work commences.

That, in turn, is a question of professionalism. It's a fairly basic procedure to sit down with a client, discuss what they want to examine, work out what they want to get from a project, determine a set of deliverables, select the right tools to undertake the task, pull together a team to roll out the project, and then to actually deliver it. It is surprising how many clients and practitioners fail to do this. At that point, either poor foresight is delivered (wrong techniques used or inappropriate maturity delivered), or good foresight is delivered that fails to provide value because it has answered the wrong question.

At that point, foresight doesn't work. However, it fails to work because it has not been delivered well. The problem is not with the technique but the way in which it has been delivered. If foresight is to work, it has to deliver good foresight (the right techniques at the appropriate level of maturity) that provides value to those involved in that foresight.

Does foresight provide value? If done properly, yes.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020

How Can We Distinguish Between Good Foresight And Poor Foresight?

Part of the intrinsic value proposition of foresight is that good foresight works. If that is the case, it then begs the question of how we can distinguish between good foresight and poor foresight. If we can draw this distinction, then we are on the way to determine that intrinsic value proposition. The assessment of foresight means that we have to have some ideal reference framework against which we can compare an actual piece of work to consider what elements are present and what are absent. If a large degree of those elements are present, then we can place a degree of reliance upon any given piece of work. If they are absent, then we are given a clue that the piece of work might be lacking something.

Perhaps an analogy from the medical profession might help us here? Given that most practising doctors have broadly equivalent amounts of training, how do we distinguish a good doctor from a poor one? A good doctor will inspire a greater degree of confidence compared to a poor one, but why is that the case? Usually it is because the good doctor will instil a greater feeling of competence. There is a high correlation between confidence and competence. This is also the case with futurists. Those futurists with a greater reputation for competence will instil a higher degree confidence amongst their actual and potential clients.

Professional competence is an attribute that is key to the work of professional futurists. This shows not only in their work, but also in what their reputation speaks of them. The question then arises of how we can identify and measure that competence? There are a number of ways of doing this, but just as accountants have GAAP (Generally Agreed Accounting Practices), so do futurists have the Foresight Competency Model. Before we get to the competency model, we first have to go through the Foresight Maturity Model.

The maturity model sets out a number of practices that, taken together, constitute foresight. These six practices involve framing, scanning, futuring, visioning, designing, and adapting a foresight project. Together, they form the core of technical competencies that fit into the competency model. In the maturity model, these six technical competencies can be appraised for their maturity level on a scale of one to five (ad hoc, aware, capable, mature, and world class). Each maturity level has its own attributes. The six practices and five maturity levels can be used to generate a framework to appraise a given piece of foresight.

The technical competencies fit into a more general competency model. This was developed by the Association of Professional Futurists - of which I am a member - in order to grapple with the issue of professional competence. In addition to technical competence, the model incorporates four other competencies (personal effectiveness, academic, workplace, and sectoral) to provide an overall framework. The competency model as a whole is designed for use in a global setting, but relies heavily upon professional assumptions from the US in its design. For example, it stresses academic knowledge acquisition over workplace knowledge acquisition, a more European approach to professional development. However, this question of emphasis in no way invalidates the model. It is a shortcoming that the user has to bear in mind when using the model.

The Foresight Maturity Model and the Foresight Competency Model provide a framework by which we can take a view on whether a given piece of foresight work is a good piece or a poor piece. It helps to show us what to expect in a piece of work. In many respects, this is also situational. If we are engaged in a piece of ad hoc work, then it would compromise the personal effectiveness competency if we were to strive to deliver a world class piece of work. That would be over-egging the pudding. Generally speaking, the more mature a piece of work, the more resources are needed to generate it. So if a client wants a quick and inexpensive study, then we can question the wisdom of delivering a long and costly study. That is a question of value, which is a different matter.

For now, to wrap things up, we have established - in a previous post - that whether or not foresight works depends largely upon whether we are talking about good foresight or poor foresight. Poor foresight rarely works in the absence of a huge amount of luck. Good foresight can work. To distinguish between the two, we need to refer to the Foresight Maturity Model and the Foresight Competency Model to ensure that we have a piece of foresight that is technically competent and at the right level of maturity. Of course, that does not mean that foresight has provided value per se. That is a different matter to which we shall turn next.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020

Does Foresight Work?

This might be an odd question to ask a futurist. Obviously I believe that foresight works. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't. It's not particularly well paid, it's not particularly well revered, and it's not particularly appreciated. So there must be something about it that keeps me doing it. However, when I am asked that question - as I frequently am - there is a bit more going on than meets the eye. A more honest way of asking the question would be to say, "I have doubts about whether foresight works, could you convince me please?" That is the question we shall be addressing.

In addressing the question, it might be useful to start elsewhere. It is uncommon for someone to ask an accountant, "Does accountancy work?" Simply saying it sounds absurd. Of course accountancy works. People find it useful to tally their costs and revenues, to use that information in questions of affordability, and to use the language of numbers to link the past, present and future. Accountancy rests upon a set of agreed principles and a core of techniques that are used to generate financial information. These are useful in helping to manage all sorts of entities in all sorts of situations. Accountancy works because it is extremely useful.

Does the same apply to futurists? Intuitively, you would think not. Accountants have a demonstrated utility but futurists don't. Why might that be? I think that there are two dimensions to this question. First, is there a means to distinguish between good and bad foresight? If we can distinguish between the two, we will have a standard by which we can examine the second dimension - does foresight provide value? Putting the two together, if there is a framework by which good foresight can be delivered, and if that foresight provides value, then it surely has to possess some use.

Coming back to the case of accountancy, the agreed principles and core techniques can be used to discern good accounting from poor accounting. They help to unlock some of the base assumptions that go into a set of financial statements. This allows us to take a view on whether we find the financial statements convincing or unconvincing. Unusual assumptions or irregular techniques undermine our confidence in a set of financial statements, possibly to the point where we doubt their veracity. In this case, the financial statements provide very little value and, in this case, accountancy doesn't work. For it to work, good accounting needs to inspire confidence in the set of accounts.

A similar process applies to foresight. If a study adopts a set of generally agreed techniques, and uses a range of assumptions that the end user considers reasonable, then the end user can have a degree of  confidence in the output of the study. In this sense, the output will be both convincing and useful. However, there is a danger of groupthink entering into the calculation. If the core assumptions are monocultural, then the future envisaged may become implausible to people outside of the group. In turn, this begs a question of professional ethics. To what extent should the futurist - who is acting as a technician at this stage - tell the client that they are wrong in their world view? We can park that question for now and return to it in a later piece.

For now, we want to establish something different. If foresight is to work, it must be useful. For it to be useful, it has to provide some form of value to the users of foresight. In order to have provided this value, we must be able to distinguish between good foresight and poor foresight. We need to be able to appraise a study, find the good points and find the weak points, determine if the right techniques were used or if things could have been done differently, and expose assumptions we find convincing and assumptions we feel are a bit weak. 

This feels as if we are ducking the question. Does foresight work? It could do if we use the right approach. If we get things right, it can be quite valuable. If we get things wrong, it can be a waste of time and money. We need to reduce the chance of wasting money by ensuring that a foresight study is properly structured in the first place. This is the subject of our next piece - looking at the question of good and poor foresight.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2020