What do we mean by foresight?

Anyone who works with or has been exposed to Foresight is familiar with the initial reaction that is perhaps best captured in the question "what the hell are you talking about?" While mildly amusing at first, this kind of response is concerning. Without agreement on a definition, then it is very difficult, if possible at all, to effectively communicate and align on expectations. Clarifying what is meant by foresight is fundamental to deciding how to design it into the fabric of an organization, which in turn determines how much, or how little, value it creates.

After almost a decade of experience in the field, I have found that there are three ways that the word "foresight" is used in practice: as a entity, as an activity, and as an attribute. The distinction has important implications for how the value of foresight is experienced within and perceived by organizations. The core question is this: given the multiplicity of definitions, can we appropriately describe an organization that sources Foresight externally or from an internal function that uses Foresight methods as ipso facto having foresight?

To answer this question, we must first understand the three definitions.

Foresight as an entity is a concept that merits some consideration but not much. This case is characterized by pluralization of the word as "foresights." The problem with such use is intuitively evident, because saying the word feels awkward – and we would do well to heed this discomfort. There is no such thing as "a foresight" in the way that there is such a thing as an insight. Foresight as an activity may yield insights, but not so-called "foresights."

The more common use of the term foresight is as an activity. This is the form that leads professionals who do not want to be called "futurists" – for many good reasons – to use some label like "Strategic Foresight Practitioner." That is, a person who uses the methodology of Foresight. In professional terms this is understood to include such techniques as horizon and/or environmental scanning and various forms of patterning and scenario creation, at a minimum. All other permutations build on these foundational tools to address specific domains like policy making, risk management, and innovation, to name but a few.

However, while an organization may indeed have a dedicated Foresight practice and perform the methods, it is not guaranteed to enjoy foresight as an outcome. Likewise, an organization may make decisions that turn out to be prescient without having an internal function labelled Foresight and without purchasing it from a vendor. In other words, I do not believe that doing Foresight can be assured to lead to decisions that, in retrospect, can be said to demonstrate foresight as an outcome.

This is where the third definition comes in. Foresight as an attribute is difficult to pin down, but I provisionally assert that it means that an organization is observed to repeatably create value through the deliberate and systemic allocation of resources informed by anticipated, not only actual, changes in its environment. Furthermore, my working hypothesis is that foresight as an attribute emerges (a term I use very deliberately) from the collective intelligence (as an activity, not mere aggregation of information) of an organization, rather than as the result of doing Foresight.

So, simply put, use of Foresight methods does not on its own mean that an organization can be said to have foresight. Other ingredients are necessary and more important.

I realize this is something of a bold claim, and one that requires further theoretical clarification as well as presentation, and good faith analysis, of evidence. This will be covered in subsequent posts, along with concrete ideas about what this conceptualization means for the "where" and "how" of organizational Foresight, as well as implications for the process of innovation.