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 on Future-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 entitys mission The planning entitys production technology The planning entity in its environment At a meso-level The planning entitys position towards uncertainty

Archetypal planning situations The planning entitys 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 FA

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 STC S TC

Archetypal planning situations The planning entitys 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 entitys 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 STC S TC

Archetypal planning situations Going to extremes: T 1 ST C

Archetypal planning situations Well, you cant interact with em all! T C ST

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 MissionProduction technology PE in its environment Climate change Need to address conflic- DiverseNeed 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

Archetypal planning situations Thank you!