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