Introduction to Foresight and Future Scanning Techniques
We are often tasked with helping clients anticipate and build a resilient model for the future. Paradoxically, clients often resist conducting future research or considering issues beyond their work domain.
Foresight research is a systematic process for identifying emerging signals, analysing trends, and developing potential scenarios to inform strategic decision-making. (Learn more in this document about the origins and history of the field of foresight and futurism.)
Through this process, organisations can gain a better understanding of possible futures and take proactive steps to shape outcomes that align with their goals and values.
Future scanning with groups has several benefits:
Diverse Perspectives: Engaging a group in future scanning activities brings a variety of viewpoints and expertise to the table, leading to more robust insights.
Collaborative Innovation: Working as a group fosters collaboration, encouraging the co-creation of ideas and solutions that consider a broader context.
Shared Ownership: Involving multiple stakeholders in future scanning helps build consensus and shared ownership of the outcomes, increasing buy-in and support for future-focused initiatives.
To begin the session, participants went into small breakouts to discuss the following question:
What innovation or technology are you convinced will be available by 2029?
Here are some of the answers:
Wifi could be 50G. With better wifi, telemedicine can reach rural and underserved communities.
Quantum computing. Possibly less tech and more science (permaculture for example).
Fully autonomous vehicles will be a new norm.
There will be different versions of AI such as fake news and super assistance.
The lines between the real world and the artificial will continue to be blurred.
This quote is often cited.:
“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
— Attributed to many people… from the Nobel prize-winning Quantum Physicist Niels Bohr to legendary Baseball Player (and Philosopher) Yogi Berra
But what is future scanning vs. foresight vs. future studies?
Foresight has 3 different definitions:
The power of foreseeing: “Through foresight, she could tell what the outcome would be.”
Provident care: “She had the foresight to invest her money wisely.“
An act of looking forward.
Within our work as designers and facilitators, the definition of future scanning that Peter is aiming for is “ the act of looking forward intentionally, with care.”
Chris Luebkeman, a trained futurist, inspired the topic of this Design Gym. He wrote a LinkedIn post about how he became a futurist. He is an engineer who was inspired by a bridge built in 1930 in Switzerland.
He describes this bridge as beautiful and organic, with the appropriate balance of engineering and architecture. This is what futurists are trying to understand.
How can we design parameters that help build something to meet future needs with the appropriate level of intent, materials, costs, energy, etc.?
Peter attended a Foresight and Future Professionals gathering at the University of Houston, which consists of participants from diverse backgrounds who work at Fortune 500 companies, small boutiques, etc. Attendees of this gathering share methodologies, models, languages, and practices that are continually evolving.
These people live in organizations in which they have to stretch the companies i’ future, and they have the methodology to do so.
Andy Hines is the head of the program, and Peter shared with the group what he has learned from him.
It begins with a domain map. This is how he captures books, links, knowledge, and artifacts that do not fit into a certain category. His methodology captures those resources and watches them grow over time.
A similar methodology is a future timeline. This is called STEEP ( Social, Tech, Environmental, Economical, and Policy). The middle of the circle is the domain topic and those outside of it are the gravitational pull of what is becoming extracted/influenced (these are subcategories). The policy is where these categories become enforceable and legally binding.
When mapping these out, there are three horizons. The first is a 1-2 year time span, then it is a 2-5 year timeline, whereas the third horizon is 5-10 years.
Breakouts
Participants went into groups to practice this methodology. They were given topics/trends/weak signals to use and worked together to try to map out these topics on a horizon. Here is what the groups came back with:
Group 1 had the topics of neurolearning, blockchains, and credentials. They put blockchain on horizon 2. It is a ledger, it is good at tracking the history of things. For example, a researcher used blockchain to gather vaccination data for a certain population.
How we did the work vs the work we did. We need to surround ourselves with people with different levels of expertise. Our personal biases have a lot to do with how we see the future.
The challenge of qualitative vs quantitative research.
We need to be clearer in our language about what the future means in terms of access for everyone.
Group 2 had the gamification of learning and meta-learning. Meta-learning was put on the first horizon. The gamification of learning was placed on the second horizon. It is essential to find the right people and the right amount of people around the topic, this takes time. Diversity of thought and representation are essential.
Group 3 had global collaborative learning, personalized learning platforms, and AI as teaching assistance. Global learning is already happening it is what we are doing right now with Miro and Mighty Networks. So this is in the first horizon. The other two are in horizon 3, 5-10 years out. We have extensive training to do. It will be a substantial collective learning experience for AI training. Much of this depends on the scale you are considering.
So, what are the next steps? Learning a domain map. Professionals maintain this map of clients over an extended period. One category that was added to the Steep model is values. It is now STEEP+ v. Values are the processes occurring within us. What do we care about? Where do we spend our money? What motivates us?
In systems facing deep divisions — between institutions and communities, funders and doers, or tradition and innovation — conflict is not the exception; it's the norm.
In systems facing deep divisions — between institutions and communities, funders and doers, or tradition and innovation — conflict is not the exception; it's the norm. Co-designing in these spaces requires tools that help people see both their own assumptions and those of others, without flattening or erasing differences.
What is Co-Designing in Conflict, and Why Does It Matter?
Using system mapping and visualizing competing mental models is essential to working on 'wicked' problems. These methods allow us to make the invisible visible, shift from positions to perspectives, and create space for authentic dialogue.
Provocative Questions for Facilitators:
How do we support collaboration when trust is low or absent entirely?
What happens when we stop trying to solve the conflict and instead start mapping it?
How can visualization tools represent multiple truths without forcing agreement?
How Can Facilitators Work Within a System in Conflict?
Co-designing in conflicted systems doesn't mean avoiding tension — it means working skillfully within it. In this workshop, you'll learn to use a mix of systems thinking, mapping tools, and facilitation methods to help teams:
Map the Systems Landscape: Identify the stakeholders, power dynamics, feedback loops, and stuck patterns.
Surface Competing Mental Models: Make visible the different assumptions, values, and narratives that drive behavior.
Find "Coherence Without Consensus": Help groups align around shared purposes, even without shared opinions.
Frenemies
The focus of this Design Gym was to discuss how to facilitate frenemies. This topic was inspired by a panel discussion at the annual SXSW conference that Peter attended in Austin, Texas.
The “Frenemies“ panel was hosted by a group with members from an indigenous tribe in the Pacific Northwest, local fishermen, and government officials. These three groups are considered "frenemies" (friends and enemies) that all have a common interest: Salmon. The issue at the heart of the conflict is salmon, which have been massively overfished and affected by climate change.
The fishermen believed that they should have access to fish, whereas the First Nation Indigenous Tribe has legal rights to fish on the land, all while the government agents have laws that are constantly evolving. These three groups started as enemies, and at the end of the panel, they had a systemic view on preserving the salmon.
Stories like this happen often in this line of work.
And, for this Design Gym, Peter used the challenge of "hypoxia" as an example. Hypoxia means low levels of oxygen. This problem exists in water all over the world, and when oxygen levels drop, animals die. In New Orleans, the Mississippi River enters a massive delta into the Gulf, and since 1985, the government has been measuring the size of the dead zone.
So, why is this happening?
It is due to the cows, chickens, and nutrients that we use for agriculture. The problem originates in the Northern Mississippi basin in the Midwest, where the nitrogen, phosphorus, and poop are entering the water and contaminating it.
Peter's cousin, who is a lawyer, invited him to attend a Frenemies design session concerning hypoxia. Different representatives from the surrounding states, such as researchers, farmers, sanitation engineers, government officials, and private industry researchers, were in attendance. Each person had their own goal, and many people in attendance were at odds with one another.
The primary topic was the nutrient trading system, and the overall goal was to decrease hypoxia. During the design session, participants used the tool system mapping to examine what the different parts of the system were and how they interact with one another.
Another tool used: “How might we…” questions.
Questions to look at five different areas/goals that can change the behavior and affect efficient usage of pollution reduction, access to water, water treatment, water conservation, and habitat protection.
Throughout the session, they color-coded the different parts of the system to organize and understand what voice/viewpoint the input was coming from.
Following this case study, participants went into breakouts to discuss facilitating frenemies through discussing the following questions:
As a facilitator whose job is to act as a neutral party, where do you run into challenges when working with frenemies?
How do you deal with polarization and personal attacks?
How do you handle stuck systems or circular blame?
How do you handle power imbalances?
How do you center equity and voice when dominant actors control the narrative or the funding?
What about Performative participation?
How do you create conditions for real dialogue when participants show up with agendas/fear?
In the remaining time, participants shared their group discussions:
A Power Imbalance
One tool is to ask participants to change roles to understand a different perspective.
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Create a safe and trustworthy environment.
Set the intention to be 100% honest and 100% forgiving with each other.
Make sure all voices are heard.
Polarization and Personal Attacks
We can use tools like axioms, music, or breathing to calm people down.
Change the atmosphere or call a stretch break.
Dialogue walks. Prompt people while walking outside to diffuse intense situations.
In the remaining minutes, participants shared certain tools that have helped them when facilitating with frenemies:
Have people rank themselves on how they are when it comes to conflict.
Have them write out this statement: “You get the best of me when (blank), and you get the worst of me when (blank).“
Give people language to de-escalate the moment with humor.