The stages in the foresight process
Here we take a broad view of the term ‘strategy’ [1], the semantic field covering the general policy of an organisation (or a group, or a territory), ambitions, missions and activities, as well as strategic means and vectors (axes, projects, resources, etc.).
The purpose of foresight is not to produce policies or strategies, or formal ‘innovations’. Rather, it is to prepare for them, shed light on them, facilitate their expression and improve their relevance over time. It should be noted that the processes involved in foresight exercises, which are open, exploratory, ‘divergent’ and involve controversy, do not have the same mindset as strategic processes, which aim to achieve convergence and alignment between an organisation’s various projects, its stakeholders and its resources (formalisation and deliberation, resources and deployment, monitoring-evaluation, adaptation).
However, the players involved in these two families of processes overlap to some extent, both within organisations and in the regions. Furthermore, foresight work must take into account the strategies of stakeholders and the dynamics of innovation in its analysis. The relationships are related, not sequential. Making strategic thinking dependent on foresight work is even irrelevant, given the weight of cultural aspects, identities and the interplay of stakeholders in determining the ambitions and actions of a strategy.
Finally, any foresight exercise, study or analysis is motivated by the expression of a need, even a latent one. But this need must always be able to be formalised through open questions, and not through the search for a solution. A foresight exercise is indeed a project, sometimes a learning process, with the specificity of being very open; but unlike an architectural project, which aims to build a bridge or a school, the outcome of a foresight exercise is open.
[1] We take Chandler’s twofold perspective: “to determine the fundamental long-term objectives and goals of an organisation, and then to choose the methods of action and allocation of resources which will enable these goals and objectives to be achieved”, in Chandler Alfred, Stratégies et structures de l’entreprise, Paris: éditions d’Organisation, 1989 (1962).↑
How can foresight work contribute to the quality of strategic and innovation processes?
Unlike the sequencing of the previous stages of exploratory foresight, there is no single approach that enables foresight and strategy to be articulated effectively, and the results of a foresight exercise to be exploited. For some, foresight work enables a profound reworking of the representations of the organisation’s players, a better understanding of the environment, internal dynamics, etc., which are decisive points in supporting change. The variety of groups is considerable (company, sector, territory, ecosystem, etc.); some approaches that are relevant for one player will not be so for another.
The elements presented below are therefore indicative.
Four important aspects are proposed: the notion of foresight diagnosis; the exploration of possible futures for an organisation; the notion of foresight and strategic vision; decision support, and the linkages between strategies and scenarios.
1. The notion of foresight diagnosis to integrate tomorrow’s challenges
Diagnosis is a necessary part of any strategic approach. There are many diagnostic tools: some of which are generic (e.g. SWOT [Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats], McKinsey or ADL [Arthur Doo Little]-type strategic analysis grids…); while others are adapted to the organisations and issues under study, including benchmark grids and systems. With few exceptions, however, the diagnoses produced are based on past or current data, or trend projections (demographics, markets, resources, etc.). The result is policies or strategies tailored to known contexts, which take little account of stakeholder behaviour (aspirations, needs, stakeholder strategies, etc.).
The first contribution of foresight to strategy is that it enhances traditional diagnostic tools by making it possible to take into account future changes in the environment (what do we need to prepare for?) and the players involved in change (who will be tomorrow’s stakeholders?). The concepts of strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities are placed in a long-term perspective, based on foresight analyses of the environment and identified context scenarios. We will then talk about assets, areas of vulnerability, areas for development or constraints to be resolved, and issues for the medium and long term. The interests and positions of the players in relation to the main issues are also identified.
Standard tools
- SWOTTA (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Trends Actions) which, starting with the most common tool, makes it possible to integrate changes in the environment and internal dynamics.
- Analysis of the interplay of players, which enables us to understand the relationships of influence between players, future convergences and divergences, and the most likely outcomes.
- Socio-dynamic analysis of organisations.
Example of a SWOTTA
2. The notion of potential, the possible futures of an organisation
The second contribution of foresight to strategic thinking is that it enables us to go beyond the preparation of response strategies to changes in the context, by exploring the possible futures of an organisation, its medium- and long-term potential, and new organisational models that go beyond current boundaries.
In this way, exploratory work on changes in the environment can also be applied to the organisation itself. The inappropriate term ‘organisation’s development scenarios’ is sometimes used. We would rather use the term ‘possible profiles’, ‘possible futures’ or ‘possible trajectories’ for the organisation.
❝ More than 25 years ago, as part of Renault’s foresight work, several long-term pictures of the group were drawn up and discussed (‘Architect of Mobility’, ‘Major European Manufacturer’, ‘Global Manufacturer’, ‘Multibrand Service Operator’, etc.). Subsequently, economic simulations and technical feasibility studies were carried out, and guidelines translated into a long-term strategic reference framework were adopted by the Executive Committee.❞
The explorations focus on the organisation’s identity, boundaries, business lines, missions/objectives and stakeholders, and key skills. For a more limited project, foresight work can be used to explore the variety of functional solutions to a given question. In this case, it comes close to the approaches proposed by design thinking, or even design fiction.
Standard Tools
- Building long-term strategic profiles
- Tree of competencies and activities (Marc Giget)
- Identity pyramid
The approach also aims to reconcile anticipation and action. As far as possible, foresight work should distinguish between the time spent exploring possible futures and the time spent building the future, the desirable futures (as well as the dreaded futures). The aim of the previous stages is to provide as objective a picture as possible of the changes in the environment and, where applicable, the possible changes in the organisation.
One of the classic responses to this objective is to separate, in the content and processes of the work, what comes under the heading of the ‘foresight framework’, i.e. trends, emerging trends, disruptions in the environment and context, changes in stakeholders, contextual scenarios, possible futures for the organisation (or the region), etc., from the ‘strategic framework or baseline [1]‘, i.e. the missions (or business lines), the main objectives and ambitions, the boundaries of the organisation, its targets and partners, the key skills, the major projects, etc. Within this framework, the foresight frame of reference is then linked to the strategic frame of reference, in particular by using the changes in the environment and the scenarios as orientation and selection tools for the strategic options (cf. point 4 below).
Another approach, on the other hand, aims to put foresight analyses and strategic analyses and projects into a single coherent narrative, a frame of reference ensuring continuity between foresight and strategy, using the ‘foresight and strategic vision’ approach (see below / point 3).
In particular, it is important to guard against decision-makers or stakeholders who sometimes ‘select’ one scenario among others for all sorts of reasons (the scenario appears more likely, more in line with their analyses, closer to the policies already in place, etc.). This is normal and logical behaviour: when it comes to building and/or making decisions, the human mind seeks to anchor itself in a single frame of reference and to be able to relate to it easily, all the more so because past choices have been made [2].
However, this is not the first of the pitfalls, which is to assume that the aspirations and stakeholders of tomorrow will be the same as those of today. This major issue is a complex one: how do you make decisions that are committed to the long term and that will not be obsolete in the light of tomorrow’s expectations and preferences? What weight should be given to stakeholders’ current expectations in the face of future challenges when these do not seem to concern them? How can we integrate the trade-offs between the short term and the long term?
The strategic formulation process often runs into difficulties after the diagnosis and strategic analysis phase. Managers fail to generate creative or radical (or disruptive) strategic options. Foresight work, based on contrasting scenarios and universes, allows us to think outside the box and free ourselves from past strategies.
[1] For managers, this often involves their decision-making reference system, i.e. their mental representations of the present and future of their organisation, on which they base their management decisions.
[2] Confirmation bias and anchoring bias.
❝A simple but enlightening example: during the foresight study carried out in 2012 on the Olonnes conurbation, in preparation for the regional development plan (PADD / projet d’aménagement et de développement durable) and the development plan (SCoT / schéma de cohérence territoriale), the aspirations of citizens and local stakeholders were taken into account, leading to a cautious vision of the future, quite far removed from the long-term issues identified in the foresight diagnosis. In particular, the question of socio-demographic sustainability was raised: the permanent resident population of the conurbation was one of the oldest in France (average age of 62 for the commune of Les Sables-d’Olonne in 2010) and the residential attractiveness of the Vendée coast, particularly for retired people, made it difficult for young households to settle there. If we had followed the forecasts, this would have meant more care homes and fewer schools… Environmental issues were also very important. What’s more, the relative isolation of the municipalities in the conurbation, which were of similar size in 2010, made it difficult to undertake large-scale joint projects at that time. However, a number of elected representatives, in particular the deputy mayor at the time, adopted a long-term plan for ‘socio-economic renewal’, aimed at attracting new populations, in particular young working people, strengthening protection of the natural environment, reserving land (140 hectares) for future development projects at the entrance to the town, and changing municipal structures in preparation for the eventual merger of the municipalities in the conurbation (to be achieved in 2019).❞
3. The notion of foresight and strategic vision
The notion of strategic vision developed in the 1980s in the world of corporate strategy consulting, against a backdrop of criticism of ‘deliberate’ planning approaches that linked ambition and targets with ‘strategic axes’ and resources (synchronic and diachronic alignment). [1]. A strategic vision is a representation of the organisation’s desired future, an image combining reason, aspiration and intuition. It involves the organisation’s driving forces, its closest stakeholders, and proposes a convergent and coherent framework for action (a frame of reference) to implement shared ambitions. In fact, we should be talking more about a political vision that questions meaning (content and direction) rather than a strategic vision (a dialectic of ends and means). An abundance of literature has developed in this field, often with or without academic research.
The foresight approach significantly enriches this notion, which is now commonplace, by taking into account, upstream of the vision, several levels of analysis and exploration: the medium- and long-term environment, stakeholder transformations, internal dynamics (e.g. age pyramid, resources), and medium- and long-term issues. It makes it possible to distinguish between adaptation to (sudden) change, transformation of the organisation’s activities (new businesses, missions, models), and proactivity (taking the lead, changing boundaries, acting on the environment, creating new ecosystems). Bringing these different levels together in a single, articulated narrative gives weight to reasoning and motivates action.
[1] See in particular Hamel Gary and Prahalad C.K., “Competing for the Future”, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1994. The authors break with the strategic positioning approach to propose an approach based on intention and strategic vision, which goes beyond adapting to contexts to transform established rules.↑
Standard tools
- Tree of competencies and activities
- Grid for constructing a foresight and strategic vision
The structure of a foresight and strategic vision
4. Linking foresight and strategic frameworks / Decision-making in the age of foresight: relevance, robustness, flexibility
Since the 1950s, organisations have developed methods to assist decision-making in a risky environment, providing simple tools (‘minimax regret’, etc.) to evaluate and compare actions (or projects) in specific contexts (or scenarios).
There is a great temptation to use them to link our two reference systems. However, this presupposes the prior identification of actions or strategic options, as well as a limited number of context scenarios, covering the field of possibilities and accompanied by a probability (even if subjective). These two aspects are very rarely brought together in a foresight exercise.
The tools used today take account of these difficulties and aim to facilitate reasoning rather than to choose a particular strategic option.
To do this, these approaches integrate the background (the changes that will occur in all scenarios), the context scenarios, the medium- and long-term issues (the impact of changes in the environment and context scenarios on the organisation, internal dynamics), the changes to be made in all scenarios with regard to the issues (sometimes called the fundamentals or strategic foundation) and the possible strategic options or projects.
This is followed by a process of linking and enriching the various elements (like the foresight and strategic vision, but with a wide range of possibilities: several scenarios, several options), and of evaluation. In particular, this involves assessing the relevance of the options in relation to the fundamental objectives, the robustness of the options in relation to the contextual scenarios, and an analysis of the flexibility of the options in relation to each other — does committing the future of an organisation to a strategic path compromise or, on the contrary, facilitate the possibility of changing path (notion of option value).
Assessing relevance, robustness and flexibility
