The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) 12 & 13 May 2011

1. The 4th International Seville Conference onFuture-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

2. 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)

3. Archetypal planning situations 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 Overview of the framework

4. Archetypal planning situations 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 The planning entity’s position towards uncertainty – KFA triangle

5. Archetypal planning situations S T C S T C 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

6. Archetypal planning situations 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 The planning entity’s mission – who needs (and deserves) foresight?

7. Archetypal planning situations 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 Position towards uncertainty of a ‘normal’ business

8. Archetypal planning situations 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 The planning entity’s production technology

9. Archetypal planning situations S T C S T C 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

10. Archetypal planning situations C S T Going to extremes: T→ 1

11. Archetypal planning situations C S T T’ Well, you can’t interact with ’em all!

12. Archetypal planning situations 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 Totally political worlds, C→0

13. Archetypal planning situations 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 Qualities and approaches for T

14. Archetypal planning situations 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 Qualities and approaches for C

15. Archetypal planning situations At last: Global Challenges

16. Archetypal planning situations Thank you!e.anders.eriksson@foi.se