Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Archetypal planning situations: A framework for selecting FTA tools for global challenges
E. Anders Eriksson and Karl Henrik Dreborg
FOI Defence Analysis, Stockholm, Sweden
The 4th International Seville Conference onFuture-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
12 & 13 May 2011
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
FTA practi-tioner
Under-stands
Misunder-stands
Under-stands
Error mode I
Misunder-stands
Error mode II
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 = (relative importance of) planning entity – self• T = (relative importance of) transactional environment• C = (relative importance of) contextual environment• S + T + C = 1
S T C
S
T 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 policy-business 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
F
K
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 = (relative importance of) planning entity – self• T = (relative importance of) transactional environment• C = (relative importance of) contextual environment• S + T + C = 1
S T C
S
T C
Archetypal planning situations
Going to extremes: T→ 1
S T
C
Archetypal planning situations
Well, you can’t interact with ’em all!
T
C
S 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 non-
predictive• ‘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 socio-natural knowledge integration
Global security
ting in- terests!
System-of-sy-stems app-roach to ma-nage increa-sing complexity
Probabilistic safety vs. possibilistic actor-related insecurity
