Bringing Foresight into Systems Thinking: A Three Horizon Approach

A primary goal of systemic intervention is the improvement of the ‘system in question’. The definition of the system in question is often itself a function of multiple stakeholders and is not a fixed object. Boundary critique can be helpful in clarifying the ambiguity, assumptions and the power dynamics around agreeing what the system is that is to be improved and for whose interests. However, there is another dimension of ambiguity which is time. Improvement implies some change from a present condition A to a better future condition B which eventually becomes a new present condition B . Where the environment is about to go through a significant change of pattern (a paradigm shift), the criteria of improvement will be different, depending which paradigm is being considered. For example, energy success in an unrestricted environment can be completely different from energy success in a restricted environment dominated by climate change. In this paper we will introduce the idea of three ways of looking at the future using a method called the three horizons . It will point out three distinct ways of looking at the future, each of which will strongly colour boundary critique and therefore affect what is considered to be a successful or ‘improved’ system. The foresight framing suggests improvement to sustain the current system, improvement which is a disruptive innovation and may reconfigure the system and improvement which is transformative and may actually result in the collapse of the systems in question. Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

[1]  C. Churchman Operations Research as a Profession , 1970 .

[2]  T. Kuhn Second thoughts on paradigms , 1977 .

[3]  G. Kreweras Creating the corporate future: Russell L. ACKOFF Wiley, New York, 1981, xi + 297 pages, £10.85 , 1982 .

[4]  Mik Wisniewski,et al.  Beyond Dispute: The Invention of Team Syntegrity , 1994 .

[5]  Lutz E. Schlange Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation , 1997 .

[6]  R. Galvin Science Roadmaps , 1998, Science.

[7]  Kathryn Graziano The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[8]  G. Midgley Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice , 2000 .

[9]  R. Pascale Surfing the Edge of Chaos , 2000 .

[10]  Eamonn Kelly,et al.  What's Next: Exploring The New Terrain For Business , 2002 .

[11]  M. V. Asselt,et al.  An updated scenario typology , 2003 .

[12]  Joseph Voros,et al.  Introducing a classification framework for prospective methods , 2006 .

[13]  Riel Miller Futures Literacy: A Hybrid Strategic Scenario Method , 2007 .

[14]  Peter C. Bishop,et al.  The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques , 2007 .

[15]  United Kingdom.,et al.  Seeing in Multiple Horizons: Connecting Futures to Strategy , 2008 .

[16]  B Sharpe,et al.  Intelligent infrastructure futures technology forward look , 2010 .

[17]  R. Poli The many aspects of anticipation , 2010 .

[18]  R. Poli Steps Toward an Explicit Ontology of the Future , 2011 .

[19]  Gerald Midgley,et al.  Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention , 2011, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[20]  A. Hodgson Towards an ontology of the present moment , 2013 .

[21]  Angela Wilkinson,et al.  LIVING IN THE FUTURES , 2013 .

[22]  P. Rossel,et al.  The Discipline of Anticipation: Exploring Key Issues , 2014 .

[23]  Appreciating The Future , 2015 .