Generative Process Prototyping

The upcoming posts and article describe a methodology for designing and prototyping generative processes. They can be generally applied, but additional focus is given here to those that support strategy crafting. Generative thinking, somes referred to as ideation, is a key component of strategy crafting as new ideas fuel future success. There are a variety of processes to help individuals and groups shift into generative mode. To help engagement in the process, often leadership groups like to have input to the design of the processes. I have deployed a variety of tools to help this along. In the blog and article that will emerge, I will describe generative processes, review the prototyping approach, and discuss how and why using prototyping for developing generative processes is a good idea.

Downloadable Futuring Article

Here is a link to a full-text version of the Futuring article in pdf format.

Various Applications of Futuring

Various Applications

The futuring method is extraordinarily flexible in both setting and extent. We have used the methodology across industries and a wide variety of settings. Beyond that, the depth of engagement can be varied from quite short to very lengthy. We really cannot think of a setting, industry, or discipline where the futuring methodology won’t work. Let us explain applications in three settings: organizational and human resource development, higher education, and technology. For most applications, the four steps remain intact, what varies are the four questions and kinds of inputs required to understand the forces. Let’s explore three examples and look at how the questions vary.

Organizational and Human Resource Development. The skills required for just about any job change over time. During times of disruption, they can change at very high rates of speed, so fast in fact that new jobs and occupations seem to be created in the matter of weeks or months. The focus here is on the skills and competencies needed now and well into the future. Then considering the implications for training and professional development. Depending on who is asking these questions – human resource functions, professional associations, training firms, staffing agencies or others – the actions and decisions will vary.

Higher Education. We use this methodology often when working with institutions of higher education in their strategic planning and program planning processes. We prefer to run separate futuring methods at the level of the school or discipline rather than the larger college or university level. The granularity is important and the action of the forces and rates of change are variable across disciplines. We look at the forces shaping the disciplines today and into the future. Then we plan from the future backward and consider the implications for both how the discipline needs to adapt and how professional practice will change. From there, the context for strategic planning and change emerges on two levels – initially for the program or disciplines themselves, the finally by exploring patterns across programs how strategy for the college or university needs to shift and evolve.

Technology. We also like to look at technologies (coding and software, hardware, user interface, mobility applications, nearly anything) and how the rapid and increasing changes impact future directions. Here the focus is at the level of the specific technology whether it be an application, set of code, user interface, larger system of hardware, or something else. We also shorten the timeframe from 10 years to something more reasonable like two to three years, or even less in an very dynamic and changing environment. We also reframe the future forces to consider the user experience before the implications are fully explored. Finally, actions required in development, resource management, and other impact areas in the coming year are unpacked.

Flexing the Depth of the Methodology. The methodology has the extraordinary ability to work in a short, half-day session, during a 3 week ideation project, or integrated into a 12 month strategic planning process. Let us give more clear examples of how we have done this.

Futuring in a Half-Day Workshop. We recently conducted half-day futuring sessions for organizations in different industries. Typically, the sessions include between 20 to 50 individuals who work both as a whole in small groups. Before the forces are explored, we set the context with a short 20 minute presentation on the context of the problem or area being explored, put some boundaries around the context, and explain some of the efforts to address change that may have been tried before. We sometimes add another 20 minute session on recent analyses or environment scans that may be on hand to help inform participants to a greater extent. The four questions or steps in the futuring method then become individual sessions of about 20-30 minutes each. Thinking is shared, harvested, then collected and recorded by a variety of techniques from pure analog paper, cards, and markets to pure digital using text, apps, or collaborative software to any soft of blended approach that best suits the audience. We have found that facilitating the opening question about current forces is done best with the group as a whole, then allowing tables or small groups to turn inward to explore future forces. We often collect and cluster these on cards or sticky-notes. We also like to conclude with a full-group exploration of the decisions and actions that need to be taken and apply one of a variety of consensus-building methods to help the group select and prioritize next steps. The whole process takes about 3 hours.

Futuring in a Three-Week Project. When we expand the method to a longer timeframe we have the luxury to do additional research and scanning to enhance the knowledge base of all participants and to extend the action planning. We set up the project with a kick off meeting, discuss the steps and activities, and make assignments with deadlines. We rely mostly on secondary sources rather than original research. We divide the research into two phases or two simultaneous projects with one focused on looking at the current environment and the second looking at trends that are expected to share the future. This research can take about 7 to 10 days of the three weeks and results in two reports, one on the current forces and another on the future forces. A meeting is held with all participants to review the results and begin to explore implications. To add depth to the identification of implications, we run separate sessions with different groups based on categories like organizational function, customer groups, organization level, job categories, or external partners. With a good map built of implications, we turn back to the decision makers and hold one or more sessions on action planning. Given the length of the project, we have more time to understand the actions in terms of their required resources, likely impacts, necessary timeframes, and unintentional consequences. We like to have one final meeting on review the entire project, resulting reports, maps, and outcomes, and action plans that resulted.

Futuring in a Twelve-Month Planning Process. Futuring on a year-long time scale is a big commitment but has great benefits to include deep knowledge building, addressing complex organizations, and extended engagement, participation, and eventual buy in. The first step is to develop a detailed project plan with the key decision-makers and participants and be sure that everyone understands and agrees to the activities, timelines, required staffing, and other resources needed for success. A good next step is to assign the research teams, typically 4-7 individuals each, from the major divisions or components of the organization. We once did a long-term futuring project with a university where each academic department – all 23 of them – completed a force analysis template that resulted in 12-15 page white papers on the current states and futures of the disciplines. We also included about a dozen cross-cutting issue teams for a total of nearly 35 separate research papers. This took about two months to complete the work in teams but provided the university with a level of environmental and internal scanning that was unprecedented. The next step was daunting, synthesizing the results and identifying the patterns that emerged, but what emerged was well worth the effort. In other kinds of industries, we have done this by business unit, site or location, user base, or any kind of organizational category.

A study then ensues of the implications. With such rich research and data in the force identification phase, implications can become complex. The make this more simple, we like to explore implications at three levels in the organization – top organizational and most strategic, next layer down with a blend of strategic and tactical, and by specific units, more tactical. These implications can include detailed financial analyses as well. The impact analyses help drive the kind of action planning applications that come next. Now we have the time for full action planning at both the strategic and tactical levels. To keep it integrated, we focus on alignment. What results from extended futuring is typically a series of strategic plans, actions, and change management plans that focus on transformation and strengthening of the organization. It’s a big effort that results in big reward.

In summary, we have presented futuring as a methodology all the while trying to make it understandable and accessible. In reality, it is nearly a philosophy. Good strategic thinking and the eventual actions that emerge require some kind of method for understanding the expected forces of the future and the implications they may create. Our method is a good one and has proven to be very adaptable. We would like you to give it a try, let us know how it went, or give us a call if you would like to partner in learning more about the future.

Comparing Similar Methodologies to Futuring

Similar Methodologies

While we believe our “planning from the future backward” framework and the accompanying strategic planning processes that connect to it are impressive and potent. However, we continuously benchmark our tools and approaches against several similar methodologies built on the same general theme. We expect our readers and clients to compare our method to similar methods used by others. Consider these similar methodologies: general methods for Scenario Planning – the IFTF Foresight Model – and a newer view on Purposeful Reinvention.

Scenario Planning. Scenario planning is a strategic planning method based on developing vivid, possible futures in narrative along with other embellishments. Scenarios can be simple and short or they can be extraordinarily complex and voluminous with supporting research and data. They are often embedded in a larger strategic planning activity. Early scenarios were generated by analysts generating simulations for policy purposes and they evolved to very sophisticated culture and mindset changers by the 1980s. When systems thinking principles were added through the 1990s and 2000s, scenarios evolved into complex and insightful ways to model multiple futures in convincing detail taking environmental conditions into account. We like to extend scenarios along the PESTE dimensions (political, economic, social, technical, and environmental) at minimum and add others specific to the circumstances. Scenario construction follows a series of similar steps, regardless of the method one chooses: 1 – identify drivers for change; 2 – combine drivers into a framework; 3 – generate initial scenarios (a dozen or less); 4 – reduce, keeping the best three or four; 5 – add details to make them vivid; and 6 – explore the implications. Here, some like to focus on a selected or preferred scenario, but we like to keep two or three scenarios in play and encourage adaptability depending on which one shows signs of emerging.

Foresight Model. The Institute for the Future’s (IFTF), whose motto is “Making the Future with Foresight”, seeks to continually reinvent strategic planning for a changing world. They find traditional planning methods in adequate in a fast changing world where often the resulting plans failed to capture the minds and hearts of their intended audiences. What emerged from their early work was three-part process portrayed below.

The three phases may appear simple, yet each is supported by vast background processes that ensure their success. The initial step is to collaboratively generated foresight through participatory strategy and well written 10-year forecasts across a large number of areas. The trends are combined in customized ways depending on the application. The second step focuses on future design inspired by insight. The processes result in visual maps of the future including big ideas that focus thinking and effort. The final step is action planning cast as acting together. There are several techniques applied here to include community engagement, leadership foresight, shared framework generation, and immersive events.

Purposeful Reinvention. In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Clark Gilbert, Matthew Eyring, and Richard Foster (2012) argue that enterprises must purposefully reinvent themselves in a world increasingly characterized by disruptive change. A two-track approach to transformation emerges. Transformation A repositions the core business to the changing marketplaces. Transformation B creates separate disruptive business units to develop innovations for  future growth. They suggest that only a two-track model allows an organization to focus effectively on two major, but quite different, change efforts at a time. The two tracks are led and operate separately, allowing each the focus and leeway necessary to carry out the transformation goals they have been assigned. The leader of Track A should be someone who not only can cut costs, but also has the capability to take a broader view and rapidly find the strongest competitive advantage the legacy programs can sustain in the disrupted marketplace. The leader of Track B, on the other hand, should identify unmet needs in the current marketplace and develop new programs or applications that will fulfill those needs cost effectively and carefully implement and evolve them. So Purposeful Reinvention is actually a strategy using two different and simultaneous approaches for thriving within a compelling future.

Similarities to Our Method. The power for future oriented action methodologies is that they all create a vision of an obtainable future and provide pathways to understanding and taking action to get there. Most of the methods also employ data, analyses, and trends from a large number and variety of sources and inputs and stimulants to the process. Below you can find a few other similarities across the methods. All four methods do have flexibility in that they can be conducted in shorter, focused sessions over a few days but can be extended to long-term deeper analysis and study over months or even years.

Futuring and Scenario Planning ·    forces and drivers ·    built on trends ·    converge on action

Futuring and Foresight Model ·    clear steps in the process ·    implications and insight ·    build to action

Futuring and Purposeful Reinvention ·    current and future states ·    disrupting current forces ·    attending to implications

Differentiators of Our Method. Our method does stand out from the others in a variety of ways. We have not seen the methods use the concept of forces in their descriptions. We like forces and force analysis applied to current and future state thinking. While many of the methods make assumptions about trends and the forces they may apply, our futuring method is explicit. Below are some additional, more specific differentiators.

Futuring Vs. Scenario Planning ·    linkage of futuring to other strategy crafting methods at the beginning or end is more clear ·    futuring provides a more clear path to action where scenario planning requires additional methods to get there

Futuring Vs. Foresight Model ·    implications may be more easily identified than insights, which require deeper engagement ·    futuring is more accessible and less costly than the full foresight model

Futuring Vs. Purposeful Reinvention ·    futuring does not force a two-track approach and may be more flexible ·    reinvention may be too market dependent, ignoring yet undiscovered ideas

Planning From the Future Backward

Planning From the Future Backward

During times of disruption, it has become increasingly important in strategic planning to take account of the impact of likely futures. Organizations must think beyond their cultural comfort zone when confronted with the threat of considerable change. They must face the inevitability of disruptive external forces taking away the luxury of internally- driven and hindsight-focused planning and decision making. Being able to tell stories about how the future could and should be different from the past, and what new behaviors will be needed to achieve that change, is an important competence in moving forward and thriving in the face of change. Planning from the future backward allows organizations to understand the implications of current and future forces acting on them and to create fresh visions of the future.

We employ a four-stage futuring framework.  The first step starts will a review of the forces that are acting on the organization in the current environment, both those that are potentially accelerating change and those that are inhibiting it. We also take into account the peripheral and emerging forces that may not be fully recognizable at the current time. The amount of detail applied to this force analysis can vary greatly. We have run half-day futuring sessions where the current force collection lasts 20 to 30 minutes and we have run long-term environmental scans where we spend weeks or months in detailed research. We’ll talk more about these different approaches later in the article when we explore different examples in greater depth.

The next step in the process is to leap forward to the future. The graphic above shows a 10-year leap, which makes sense for a lot of applications. It is far enough in the future to escape the temptation to merely project or extrapolate current trajectories, but not so far a leap that the future is wholly unimaginable. This time period for the leap forward varies depending on the planning context. When we are considering the future of technologies, we like a shorter time frame because the pace of technological change is rapid and very dynamic. When we are consider more stable, laminar change as we see in building construction or in certain academic disciplines, we prefer a longer time frame. The nature of the forces being considered is a bit different too. Often, we ask that less time be spent on the inventory of forces that are expected to remain largely the same as present day. We seek to spend more time on those forces that are expected to disappear and even more on those that will appear to be new and potentially impactful. We also like to tap into others’ research on future trends to help stimulate thinking and provoke fresh insights.

The third step in the process is to step back, review the forces that emerged in the first two steps and begin to think about and list the implications. We begin with broad, general categories, then proceed to break down the implications into a variety of more specific sub-categories. The most common categorizations are by: 1) organizational function or unit, 2) market segment, 3) business unit or product line, 4) specialized department, 5) existing or legacy programs, or 6) new programs, products or services. Sometimes, we find that certain implications warrant more thorough analyses or extensive scenario building to better understand them. The ultimate goal of this step is to paint pictures of possible futures by forecasting how the forces and implications may converge.

Finally, the fourth step is to plan from the future backward. With a large number of potential futures now better understood, planning can be brought back to today. How do the forces, implications, and possible futures impact the decisions and/or actions that need to be taken now? How about over the next three years? Or over an even a longer planning horizon? The level of detail in this step can vary greatly as well from a quick review of a number of lists and clusters on one end of the spectrum to fully expanded strategic planning on the other. The methodology has great flexibility.

In summary, planning from the future backward enables us to understand the futurity of current decisions, plans and actions. It enables leaders to escape the gravitational pull of existing ideas and assumptions about the inevitable extrapolation of current conditions and trends. Planning from the future backward enables strategic thinkers to establish and follow through on transformative aspirations in response to disruptors and emergent futures, the dimensions of which can be understood through planning from the future backward.

With guest blogger:

Don Norris, Ph.D.

President

www.strategicinitiatives.com

dmn@strategicinitiatives.com

Futuring

Futuring

This month my blog will feature content on futuring, a word that probably does not pass your spell check test, but should make intuitive sense on the surface. We have used the futuring framework to plan from the future backward in a variety of settings and applications. Over the course of the coming weeks, we will give insight to the process, compare our method to similar methods used by others, explain the steps, and show how the method can be applied in several different ways. 

I have invited a guest blogger to explore this topic and methodology along with me. Dr. Don Norris, is my consulting partner and strategic planning thought-leader. Look for more content in the coming days...