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