Transcript Slide 1

The 4th International Seville Conference on
Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
12 & 13 May 2011
Archetypal planning situations: A framework
for selecting FTA tools for global challenges
E. Anders Eriksson and Karl Henrik Dreborg
FOI Defence Analysis, Stockholm, Sweden
Archetypal planning situations
Getting to grips with the ’methodological
chaos’ in FTA
• Supply-side approach:
schooling and preferences
of FTA practitioners
• Demand-side approach:
future-oriented questions of
customer
– will? may? ought? (Börjeson et al.
2006)
• Objective framework
approach: understanding
the situation of the planning
entity
– building on Adaptive Foresight
(Eriksson & Weber, 2008)
Customer Understands
Misunderstands
FTA
practitioner
Understands
Misunder- Error
stands
mode II
Error
mode I
Archetypal planning situations
Overview of the framework
Three main explicatory strands
• The planning entity’s mission
• The planning entity’s production
technology
• The planning entity in its environment
At a meso-level
• The planning entity’s position towards
uncertainty
Archetypal planning situations
The planning entity’s position towards
uncertainty – KFA triangle
• Control (K): to try and force
developments according to
ones predetermined plans
• Forecast (F): to try and
foretell ensuing
developments and prepare
accordingly
• Accept (A): to accept that
the future may evolve in
different ways and try to
adapt only after the fact
K
F
A
Archetypal planning situations
Preview: The planning entity in its environment
S
S
T
C
T
•
•
•
•
S = (relative importance of) planning entity – self
T = (relative importance of) transactional environment
C = (relative importance of) contextual environment
S+T+C=1
C
Archetypal planning situations
The planning entity’s mission – who
needs (and deserves) foresight?
• Public sector organisations with an obligation to
serve
– e.g. defence and rescue services
• Certain types of cost centres in businesses
– e.g. business intel
• Ethically challenging foresight at public policybusiness interface
– e.g. innovative compliance schemes
Archetypal planning situations
Position towards uncertainty of a
‘normal’ business
• Maximise shareholder value
by accepting substantial risk
of business close-down if
meeting unforeseen
developments
• But stakeholder value
maximisers may think
differently
– de Geus (ex Shell Group
Planning) on business longevity
– Stora: first traded share on
record AD 1288
K
F
A
Archetypal planning situations
The planning entity’s production
technology
• Rigidity vs. flexibility
• Rigidity and flexibility of human knowledge and
skills
– e.g. small science
• Network society enabling mass customisation
based on modularity and system-of-systems
thinking
– good for those under an obligation to serve
– but hardwiring still lower-cost, of course
Archetypal planning situations
The planning entity in its environment
S
S
T
C
T
•
•
•
•
S = (relative importance of) planning entity – self
T = (relative importance of) transactional environment
C = (relative importance of) contextual environment
S+T+C=1
C
Archetypal planning situations
Going to extremes: T→ 1
C
S
T
Archetypal planning situations
Well, you can’t interact with ’em all!
C
S
T
T’
Archetypal planning situations
Totally political worlds, C → 0
• Two cases:
– Göteborg region; local and regional/sectoral climate
adaptation
– We started with external scenarios à la Shell
– With the benefit of hindsight, we should have started
with visioning and political interaction modelling of
some type…
– …and subsequently checked for robustness against
external shocks
• Tentative conclusion: if there is a dominant
among S, T, C: start with that one!
– Not least in view of attention economies
Archetypal planning situations
Qualities and approaches for T
• There are many types of creatures in the
transactional environment
– Negotiation and competition on fair market
– Love and friendship
– Violent conflict
• Force-on-force vs. asymmetric
– Persuasion
Archetypal planning situations
Qualities and approaches for C
• The natural approach to the contextual
environment is straightforward forecasting!
• So why is there need for so many methods for
‘non-forecasting’ (exploration etc.)?
– generally accepted models exist but are nonpredictive
• ‘chaos’, e.g. weather predictions
– general agreement on relevant mechanisms – but
competing models and conflicting results on future
combined effect
• e.g. climate change
– uncertainty even on relevant mechanisms in the
future
• cultural evolution
Archetypal planning situations
At last: Global Challenges
Mission
Production
technology
PE in its
environment
Climate
change
Need to
address
conflic-
Diverse
Need for socionatural knowledge
integration
Global
security
ting interests!
System-of-systems approach to manage increasing complexity
Probabilistic safety
vs. possibilistic
actor-related
insecurity
Archetypal planning situations
Thank you!
[email protected]