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
No comments:
Post a Comment