INdepth
Purpose
in
Foresight
Professor Kees van der Heijden
An engineering graduate of the
University of Delft, Holland, Kees van
der Heijden began his career with
Royal Dutch Shell. He took up key
strategic positions in Holland,
Manila, Singapore and Curacao,
before progressing to Head of
Business Environment Planning,
responsible for the development
and application of Shell’s scenario
and strategic planning.
He is currently the Emeritus
Professor of General and Strategic
Management and Director of the
Centre for Scenario Planning and
Future Studies at Strathclyde
University, Graduate School of
Business, Glasgow. In addition, he
is a visiting Professor at Nijenrode
University, Holland.
Kees is the successful author of the
award-winning book, Scenarios:
the Art of Strategic Conversation
published by John Wiley & Sons. His
most recent book “The Sixth Sense,
Accelerating Organisational
learning with Scenarios” was co-
authored by other members of the
Centre for Scenario Planning and
Future Studies.
INTRODUCTION
We human beings combine rational
thinking with emotion-driven
intuition to arrive at how we see the
world around us. Rational thinking is
about using our understanding of the
structure of the situation that we
assume will pertain as a basis for
drawing logical conclusions. Intuitive
thinking is about good and bad
worlds and our desire to affect the
balance.
An important distinction to be
made in conversations about
foresight is between the “future of
fate” and the “future of desire”.
Desmond Bernal who first articulated
this distinction in 1929 added: “man’s
reason has never learned to separate
them properly”. But understanding
this distinction can be a matter of
crucial importance in deciding what
to do. For example consider Tolstoy’s
analysis in “War and Peace” of
Napoleon’s debacle in Russia: “while
Napoleon thought he was in control
of events, the Russian general
Kutuzov knew that neither of them
were, and so he made fewer
mistakes.”
Effective foresight is about saying
something useful about the future of
our picture of the world, making use
of the power of both rationality and
intuition, whilst avoiding the
associated thinking traps.
FORESIGHT BASED ON
RATIONALITY, THE FUTURE OF
FATE
Under the heading of rational
foresight belong ideas such as
“probing the future”, “foresight as
prediction/navigation”, “sense making
foresight”, “exploratory scenarios”,
“foresight as time travel”, “learning
and adaptation”.
4 MARKETING INSIGHTS
Rational foresight starts with
making a distinction between events,
trends and structure. Consider for
example a popular foresight tool;
scenarios, stories about the future.
They relate a series of events that the
writer believes develop in a plausible
sequence, under certain assumptions.
But what is logical for one person
may not be all that obvious for
another. How can the scenario writer
make the coupling with his/her
readers more effective?
The first requirement is for the
stories to reflect the trends and
patterns that readers expect, based
on their own experience. So
scenarios must be grounded in
history, and be a natural
extrapolation of it. But the scenario
writer cannot stop there. Just
extrapolation of the past may not be
the most effective foresight. It may be
important to get some feel for the
trend breaks that could be in store.
Here the scenario writer has to delve
into the underlying structure of the
situation, and develop a mental
model of the causal relations that
give rise to the trends and patterns
that are seen in history. The next step
must be to query this model to find
where causality could force trends
into a new direction in the future.
Anticipation is about appreciating
this underlying structure. If the
foresight project reveals more of this
underlying structure than otherwise
accessible the result is improved
anticipation.
FORESIGHT BASED ON EMOTION,
THE FUTURE OF DESIRE
The “future of desire” relates to ideas
such as “giving shape to the future”,
“foresight as invention”,
“transformative foresight”, “normative
scenarios”, “commitment to a
particular identity”. Anticipation is
replaced by pro-activity, “the best
way to foretell the future is to create
it yourself”. But looming close by is
the dangerous human thinking flaw
of “illusion of control”. It is a well-
established fact that people in general
tend to over-estimate the level of
control they have over the situation
around. Illusion of control has the
potential of destroying the quality
of our foresight.
In order to minimize the dangers
of “illusion of control” it has proven
useful to mentally break up our
environment in three parts,
depending on the degree of control
we believe we have. We call these
the “contextual”, “transactional” and
“organisational” environments.
The first category is the
contextual environment. This is the
part of the world where we do not
have any control or influence over
the situation. In all foresight work it
seems useful to try to be specific on
the boundary of the territory where
our influence ends. Although this
boundary may be very different for
each of us we are all subject to
irreducible uncertainty somewhere,
and identifying that puts the question
of the illusion of control squarely on
the table for us to address.
Does this mean that there is
nothing to be done in the contextual imposed on us. Appreciating the
environment? On the contrary. A contextual environment hopefully
crucial contribution from foresight is will tell us something about whether
to help us appreciate what is going the field is skewed, and in whose
on there. It is the domain of sense direction. But in the contextual
making and rational foresight, leading environment there is a lot of higher conceptual level, “creating a
us towards understanding of more of uncertainty. We may be able to better future”. This is where foresight
the underlying causal relationships understand something of the work becomes normative and
that underpin any superior underlying structure, but beyond that transformational.
anticipation. Foresight starts with lays irreducible uncertainty. All this is
making sense in the contextual crucial data for designing the game CATEGORIES OF FORESIGHT
environment. we will play. Making these distinctions is useful in
The foresight activity of Designing our game requires any foresight project, to develop a
appreciating the contextual knowledge about us as well as about clearer understanding about where
environment is also important in the playing field. While the sense making ends, and the
enhancing our understanding of the contextual environment can be normative world begins. Some
degree of influence we have in the appreciated, and the transactional people may want to engage with
transactional environment. In the environment influenced, we have foresight methods because they feel
transactional environment we (as a significant (albeit not total) control they have lost contact with what is
person or as an organisation) are one within our own organisation. We can happening in the contextual
of the players i.e. we can influence change it, allocate resources, environment. They need a sense
the outcome of the game that is strengthen some aspects and weaken making approach. Others may want
being played on this “playing field”. others, and in that way shape the to develop a better understanding on
But we can only influence, not totally game and influence its outcome. This how to enhance the position of their
control. The shape and condition of is “future of desire” territory where own organisation. This requires a
the playing field is being determined we pursue aspirations, such as more normative strategic approach.
in the contextual environment that is winning the game, or even, at a Knowing where you are helps in

5 MARKETING INSIGHTS
making a more skilful choice of
foresight objective and method. On
the basis of the distinctions made we
arrive at three basic purpose
categories for foresight projects:
▲ In the contextual environment
Appreciative foresight
▲
▲ In the transactional environment
Instrumental foresight
▲
▲ In the organisational environment
Value foresight
▲
The following three examples
illustrate how foresight can be
categorised in this way.
APPRECIATIVE FORESIGHT
The purpose is to explore an as yet
unexplored problematic situation.
Deciding an intervention is not part
of this foresight project. Instead we
aim for sensitising, reframing,
surfacing assumptions, making sense,
“seeing”, anticipating.
An example of an appreciative
project was the now legendary first
application of the scenario approach
in business, carried out by Pierre
Wack in the Shell Company in the
1960’s. This led to a reframing of the
perception of the oil market by, for
the first time, seriously looking at it
from the perspective of oil producing
countries.
Up till that time it had been
assumed that governments give out
concessions and companies decide
production levels. This was the
“Business As Usual” world, based on
clearly defined and understood role-
assumptions. Scenario exploration
made the team ask a new and
maverick question: “What would
happen if governments of producing
countries decided to use their
potential power to take on a new
role in influencing production levels?”
The team found that in the
market conditions of that time such a
change could create an unexpectedly
dramatic trend break, putting into
focus the real possibility of a major
price crisis in the not too distant
future. This insight allowed Shell to
“see” its business environment in a
new way, and made the company
prepared for the unprecedented price
explosion when it actually happened
a few years later.
INSTRUMENTAL FORESIGHT
The purpose is to set direction and
help in decision-making. While
appreciative foresight aims to open
up, instrumental foresight works
towards closure. It is about how we
can best act on the “playing field”
towards winning the game. This may
involve mapping options for
intervention, mapping uncertainty,
testing the Business Idea, “wind
tunnelling” options, building
confidence to act and involving
stakeholders in decisions.
The instrumental use of
scenarios is the most common in
the organisational world, where
scenario projects aim to develop
test beds for considering the
relative merits of optional strategic
decisions.
A typical example of instrumental
foresight was field Marshall
Allanbrooke’s use of the scenario
methodology in shaping Allied
strategy during World War 2. He
employed a group of what today
would be called scenario-planners to
help him think through options and
potential outcomes. The job entailed
mapping out options in a matrix
against a number of contrasting
scenarios of the contextual
environment in which the “game”
would play out. Each scenario/option
combination was carefully evaluated.
Overviewing the whole matrix they
then tried to decide which games
were always inferior and, therefore,
had to be rejected, and how the
remaining “games” balanced level of
potential returns against level of risk
of a negative outcome.
This thorough preparation
allowed them to successfully hold out
against strong pressure from their
American allies to set a date for the
invasion of France as early as 1943.
Instead they persuaded the Alliance
firstly to open up the Italian front,
significantly weakening the German
forces when the invasion took place
in 1944.
VALUE FORESIGHT
The purpose is to bring groups of
people together in a process of
consensus building on a “future of
desire”. Value foresight helps
organisations by strengthening future
orientation, challenging groupthink,
team building and language creation,
bridge building with others,
increasing common ground and
6 MARKETING INSIGHTS
culture change.
An example of a value foresight
project was the Mont Fleur project in
South Africa in the early 90’s, at the
time that discussions between the
parties on the future of apartheid had
just started. Many in the black
population started to realise that they
might be called upon to play a role in
government, and that it would be
rather different from the resistance
“warfare” role that had been their
daily life until then. While the value
of overcoming apartheid had been a
strong binding force between them,
such a common value was less
obvious for the time after this had
been achieved, and trade-offs would
have to be made in the collective
domain.
The project brought together a
wide range of individuals who
decided they wanted to align their
values by thinking through possible
futures for S. Africa, depending on
possible changes in the power
structure, and how they, as new
players, might define their role and
approach to governance.
Many Mont Fleur participants
subsequently moved on into
influential government roles, and the
scenarios made a significant
contribution to a smooth transition by
introducing a common language in
which the new governance issues
could be discussed. (E.g. Nelson
Mandela: “Explain to me how this
proposal does not lead to Icarus”.
Icarus is one of the Mont Fleur
scenarios).
CONCLUSION
The three examples are presented
here as illustrations of the very
different shapes of foresight projects,
depending on the objectives set for it.
In practice few foresight projects we
have studied start from a clearly
defined set of objectives. As a result
projects drift around for long periods
of time until the aims start to emerge
and the project becomes more
purposeful. Many projects do not
reach that stage and are prematurely
scuttled, due to perceived “lack of
progress”. A major step forwards can
be made by using the distinctions
discussed here to define the objectives
of the project in unequivocal terms,
thereby making it more purposeful and
increasing its chances for success. ▲