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