Towards a systemic foresight methodology (SFM)

Citation

Saritas, O. (2010), "Towards a systemic foresight methodology (SFM)", Foresight, Vol. 12 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs.2010.27312aaa.001

Towards a systemic foresight methodology (SFM)

Article Type: Editorial From: foresight, Volume 12, Issue 1

The 2000s have witnessed increasing complexities in societies. Although the world has got better for some, for the vast majority it appears vulnerable to social and economic instability and hostility due to the economic recession, lack of fresh water, food, and energy supply, climate change, regional conflicts, and respective population movements. The new global context suggests increased financial, trade and investment flows in leading to a more interconnected and interdependent world, which is accelerated by rapid technological progress in areas such as ICTs, biotechnologies, fuel cells and nanotechnologies. The new ICT enabled society demands inclusiveness and equity through freedom of association and expression with full protection of human rights. There is now an emerging need for new international regulations and standards to govern trade, quality, labor, environment and intellectual property rights.

As a result of these developments it has been observed that the scope and focus of foresight activities have widened to cover a wide variety of issues. Although, it is observed that the nature of the situations has changed and has become more complex and uncertain, the way foresight deals with them has remained largely unchanged. “Systematic” method-bound foresight processes are suggested to tackle with “systemic” situations involved in human and social systems, which are “open” in nature. The notion of “open” system comes from the unpredictability of the behaviors of the system elements. In this respect, systems, particularly human and social systems, behave differently both spatially and in time under different circumstances. Therefore, investigations into these systems require specific approaches each and every time, which are developed following a comprehensive “understanding” phase, which includes understanding the context, content and process of Foresight (Saritas, 2006).

Any change activity, like foresight, should be linked to a broader context. The lack of attention away from the context, whether this to be global, national, or regional leaves the critical issues unrecognized, which has been the case in methodologically bounded activities. Thus, it is recognized that foresight should not strive to understand the issues as episodes divorced from the historical, organizational and/or economic and social systems from which they emerge. The content of the foresight activity is constructed from its context by capturing the promising points of leverages that can provide social, economic and environmental benefits in the future. The process of foresight under the guidance of the systemic foresight methodology (SFM) is then designed in line with the characteristics of its context and content.

Another important feature of SFM is its emphasis on inclusivity and behavioral matters involved in foresight. Because of their overt techno-economic purpose, earlier foresight studies have relied on the opinions of a relatively narrow body of technologically oriented people. However there is now a greater need for widening the scope of consultation in foresight to turn it into a much wider social process. This need is largely prompted by recognition of the limitations of foresight regarding participation, the lessons learned from the corporate sector regarding the benefits of stakeholder inclusion, and trends for increased inclusivity across all areas of policy making. In order to achieve this inclusivity, the practitioners of the activities need to put much effort into understanding the behavioral matters.

Three important points can be specified for further examination on the way to SFM:

• •

  The need to gain a rich understanding of existing systems and procedures, their history and possible futures.

• •

  The analysis of different stakeholder perspectives and their social relations in the system, which can affect and be affected by the process.

• •

  The impacts of formal and informal networks and procedures, which can be in favor or in conflict with other systems.

On the way to SFM, I would like to acknowledge that these ideas have stemmed from my discussions with Professor Denis Loveridge during and after my PhD work in PREST/MIoIR. It is after our extensive talks, we concluded that there is a need for “foresight for beyond business as usual”[1] indicating:

• •

  First, a need to learn to anticipate, with the intention of being prepared for or to prepare for whatever might follow from the ongoing and future social, economic and political mayhem.

• •

  Second, a need for a new “systemic” foresight approach, beyond usual methodologically based approach, in order to place thinking and understanding of situations at the forefront of the foresight process.

Notes

1. This was the conceptual metaphor we used to restructure the PREST/MIoIR annual Foresight Training Course for sponsors, organizers and practitioners in 2009.

Ozcan Saritas