"How do I know that it works?", is a common objection encountered by many foresight practitioners. In order to counter that objection, it would be helpful to be able to demonstrate to potential clients examples of where foresight has worked in the past and to explain how it could well work in the future. To do this, we need some form of framework that allows us to compare what was expected from a foresight project against what it actually delivered.
We can do this within three contexts. First, before a specific project is commissioned - almost as a feasibility project that explores the proof of concept. In this respect, the framework can act as a template for building a project at the conceptual stage. This is an ex ante foresight evaluation. Second, after project has been delivered, we can use the framework to explore how well the project performed against expectations, assess whether or not the project delivered value for money, and review how convincing we find the conclusions of the project. This is ex post foresight evaluation. Third, in between the start and the finish of a project, we can use the framework to evaluate the progress of a project. This is more of a management tool to either keep the project running to plan, or to change the plan because it is no longer appropriate. This is process foresight evaluation.
While each of these contexts has a different purpose, the general use of the framework is broadly applicable to each of them. In this piece, I shall focus mainly on ex ante foresight evaluation. In following work, I will develop the theme a bit more to apply it to ex post foresight evaluation and to process foresight evaluation.
When constructing a foresight project, we need to be mindful of three things - the shape of the project (which is the larger decision frame), the depth of the project, and the staffing of the project. I should say at the outset that different practitioners have their own favourite frameworks that determine the shape of a project. No single framework is inherently better than another, they merely reflect the mode of thinking about strategic foresight by that particular practitioner. It reflects where they learned their trade, which elements they think are more important, and, to a certain degree, their attitude towards the future.
For my part, I prefer the framework set out in Andy Hines and Peter Bishop's 'Thinking About The Future'. As I said, there are other frameworks that are equally as useful, but we have been using this one for nearly two decades and it is as valid today as it was nearly 20 years ago. The framework breaks the process of foresight into six elements - Framing (working out what the foresight project is looking to achieve); Scanning (looking at what is happening within the decision frame); Forecasting (rolling forward the scanning into the future); Visioning (examining alternative futures within the decision frame); Planning (turning the abstractions of the visioning into things that could be done); and Acting (determining a course of action and then executing it).
It should be said that the elements within the framework make no reference to the tools and techniques of foresight. These naturally help to gravitate the practitioner to one particular element. For example, the much used 2x2 matrix can be quite useful in the visioning process in teasing out alternative futures. It can also help in the planning stage, when competing alternatives are the focus of concern. Equally, the 3 Horizons model can serve in the framing process as it helps us to clarify what it is that we are looking at. It also serves well in the scanning and forecasting element, where we need to set a temporal dimension to the project.
It also has to be said that different projects might want to give differing emphases on different elements. For example, if the emphasis of the project is to explore possibilities for the future, then it might want to focus more upon the scanning and forecasting elements, even at the cost of not really coming to grips with the acting element. Alternatively, if the project is happy to have external visioning as an input in order to focus on planning and acting, then a consequence of that decision will be to accept the assumptions about the future that are baked into that external input. It is important to note that those undertaking the project do not have to undertake each element themselves. However, a well balanced project would contain each of the elements.
Once we have set out the foresight framework we are to be using, we then have to give some consideration to the depth of investigation we need to undertake. There is a model that we can use to help us here. The Foresight Maturity Model was developed to work in tandem with the Foresight Framework. It sets out five levels of depth to which a project can aspire. These are: Ad Hoc (this is a cursory review of the issue); Aware (where the review is more than superficial); Capable (where the a degree of consistency has been developed within the foresight capability); Mature (where a degree of advanced practice has been developed); and World Class (where the project might be considered a leader in the area).
Needless to say, whilst we all might want to undertake world class work, this does have a budgetary implication. It is generally the case that the more depth that is given to a project, the more cost will be attached to it. It can be a delicate process of scaling back ambitions to fit the budget available. One way of squaring the circle could be to trim back the ambitions with regards to the framework to be used. This reflects a process of finding a compromise between competing alternatives. For example, if we trim back the trend analysis in our scanning, could we use that budget to push the result from capable to mature? Or if we used a set of external visions, could we use the budget saved to enhance the results from ad hoc to aware? These are the trade offs that the framework can inform. They set out the range of choices that are open to a project.
As most projects are labour intensive, the cost of staffing a project provides the third dimension to constructing a foresight project. Fortunately, there is a model that we can graft on top of the Foresight Framework and the Foresight Maturity Model - the Foresight Competency Model. This model establishes professional competence in three levels - Entry Level (someone starting to learn the craft); Associate Level (someone with a degree of technical competence); and Senior Level (someone technically competent and able to instruct others).
Once again, there is a degree of trade off between seniority and cost. Whilst we may want a project to be undertaken by people at the senior level alone, we have to accept that as seniority rises, so does the daily fee rate which they can command. There has to be a certain degree of trade off between the staff cost of the project and the budget of the project. The preceding two steps can help to inform us in this area. If we are considering a part of the foresight framework that we don't find particularly compelling, and if we do not intend to go too deep into this area, then do we really need to hire someone especially senior on this aspect of the project? All foresight projects have to trim themselves to fit the resources available. This approach allows us to do this in a reasonably systematic way.
The three components are all designed to telescope into each other. The foresight framework is designed to answer questions such as what are we looking at? Over what time horizon? With what purpose? Using what tools and techniques? The foresight maturity model is designed to carry forward that discussion onto the depth of study we wish to undertake. It also starts to place a degree of resistance, normally in terms of a budgetary constraint, to our ambitions. Finally, the foresight competency model starts to address the question of who is to do what within the project. This will bring the question of cost to the front of the project planning exercise.
So far, we have discussed this in terms of ex ante foresight evaluation. The same structure, after the project has ended, can be turned around to consider the delivery of the project in terms of an ex post foresight evaluation. It also can be used to assess whether a project under way is still worth undertaking or needs some changes in an exercise of process foresight evaluation. The detail to all of this framework needs to be specified further, but is does provide the first steps towards a buyer's guide to foresight.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2021
