Meeting with Tim Mack
Today I went out to Bethesda and visited with the World Future Society (yes, they need a web site remake, and they are getting one), an organization with a membership of some 25 000 people in 80 different countries, all focused on future studies in it's different shapes and forms. Mack, who has more than 36 years of experience in the Future Studies business, is a fascinating figure. He basically knows everybody in the future studies sector, has taken part in most of the large projects and travels extensively to conferences and events all around the world. As the president of the WFS he has a daunting task: to educate and further the field of future studies. But things are looking brighter by the day.
On methods
The first thing we discussed was if there is any kind of consensus on methods in future studies. Mack maintains that there is at least a core of methods that - even if they come in variants - most futurists are familiar with. As examples he mentioned technology impact assessment scenarios, the Delphi method and cross impact analysis. These methods form a core tool set for future studies. All of them were born, more or less, in RAND after world war II. These methods are accepted, but they are now also being challenged by less quantitative methods such as casual layered analysis. (Now, I am sceptical of that one, but will try to learn more - postmodernism is so, so...boring).
On Ray Kurzweil
Considering that the singularity believers (many of them are best characterized as believers, although Kurzweil himself is harder to pin down in this category) are invading the field, it was interesting to hear that Mack - even though he far from agrees with everything Kurzweil says - thinks that Kurzweil has one important valid point. The rate of change is increasing. Mack's view on this was that we see clear evidence of additive and enabling effects that create and support a law of increasing returns. There are also unconnected developments, but many phenomena actually seem to change faster. What, then, does this mean for future studies? They must become more frenetic, Mack answers. They become less leisurely and need to be implemented faster. (Theoretically, of course, there is a limit where the time it takes to perform the study and implement it in a complex organization actually exceeds the validitytime of the analysis. When this happens future studies become positively harmful to organizations, since they would be more helped by (or their only possibility is to) going into a solely reactive mode.)
On implementation
One of the perhaps most difficult tasks that any futurist faces (no matter what they call themselves) is of course to implement the strategies suggested in the results of their future studies. This is hard in the extreme, but Mack says that there are some things to remember: ensure leadership buy-in at an early stage, and best of all (if possible) engage the corporate leadership in the studies themselves. Then ensure that the staff circulates in this role - the risk is otherwise that the corporate futurist becomes an isolated satellite on his own mission, gradually going out of the organization's orbit. Sunset clauses and time limits may ensure that this does not happen (as examples of extremely succesful future studies groups Mack mentioned some of the many 2000-groups formed in 1980). Mack also pointed out that even succesful change sometimes actually will require a scapegoat - a worrying proposition for anyone involved in strategic change.
On software
One of the perhaps most interesting developments right now is the development of dedicated software for future studies. Mack maintained that this might very well happen, but that there are several problems intertwined with developing these tools. One is that they may very well become examples of black box analysis: the software provides an analysis but the grounds or calculations it is based on is opaque to the recipient. Such analysis is rarely useful since you do not know what the factors behind the analysis were, and what to do if they (or even if they have) changed. Future studies remain - in a very positive sense - a craft requiring experience, knowledge and transparency. One could even argue that the results of future studies - the actual visions of the future, scenario or matrices you have - are far less relevant than the process itself, since it accentuates the situation you are in, the critical factors and counterfactors of change as well as the possible course of action.
Mack also said that he would be happy for someone to open up a Stockholm Chapter of the WFS, and this seems like a good idea. All interested contact me and let's see what we can do!