An Overview of the Horizons Foresight Method: Using the “Inner Game” of Foresight to Build System-Based Scenarios

Abstract

Humans have an amazing capacity to imagine the future, and most foresight tools use this capacity but don’t explicitly support it. The Horizons Foresight Method puts this power to model and visualize at the center of the foresight process. This paper introduces foresight and scanning in general terms, describes how we can support the “inner game” of foresight, outlines the steps in the Horizons Foresight Method and some of the practical issues that arise when using it. There are many tools in the futurist’s toolbox and many good foresight methods. At Policy Horizons Canada, we use a variety of methods depending on the purpose of each foresight study. The Horizons Foresight Method is a strategic foresight method that was designed to help government policy analysts and decision-makers explore how complex systems could evolve and to address the kinds of policy relevant uncertainty these shifts generate. It provides a context for policy development and vision-building. All the tools integrated in the Horizons Foresight Method were developed in the field of futures studies. Teaching this method can expose students and practitioners to some of the most useful tools in doing foresight.

Keywords

foresight visualization scanning mental models assumptions change drivers scenarios

What Is Foresight?

Foresight helps us understand the forces shaping a system, how the system could evolve and what surprises could arise. In forward-looking government organizations, strategic foresight provides a powerful context for policy development, strategic planning, decision-making, and even audit and evaluation. The longer timeframe enables organizations to anticipate and prepare for tomorrow’s problems and not just react to yesterday’s problems. Applied foresight, building on the context provided by strategic foresight, supports innovative solutions to specific problems. The objective of foresight is not to predict the future, but to prepare strategies, policies, and programs that are robust across a range of plausible futures.

Foresight is often confused with forecasting. Forecasting does try to predict the future. It takes data from the past and extrapolates it into the future using a variety of tools, from statistics to simulations. Forecasting helps users understand the present and the most likely future (often with upper and lower limits). However, at a time when the underlying systems are changing in fundamental ways, users of forecasting should take care to confirm that the supporting assumptions are still accurate.

To be clear, the Horizons Foresight Method is designed to support strategic foresight. That is, to help policy analysts and decision-makers to explore the range of plausible futures and challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. It can be used to develop robust strategies. See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Characteristics of forecasting, strategic and applied foresight.

Scanning for Weak Signals Is the Foundation for Useful Strategic Foresight

Horizon scanning is an essential initial step in foresight. It is an organized process that searches for weak signals—signs that something new is occurring that could disrupt the system in unexpected ways. Often, the disruptive change comes from places where analysts are not looking. But the changes may be known to frontline workers, early adopters, critical thinkers, and so on. Great scanning provides the evidence for insightful foresight. Then, foresight explores how the weak signals interact with the system in unexpected ways to create surprises.

Many organizations focus their attention and scanning on the expected future—that is, the high probability, high impact developments that could disrupt their operations. These developments are often in the media and part of the everyday public and policy dialogue. It is important for organizations to address these issues, and many organizations are very good at it. However, developments that are perceived to have low or unknown probability and potentially high impact are often discounted or ignored. Policy analysts see them as tomorrow’s problems or as lying beyond the scope of the study or the mandate of the organization because they cannot see the pathways through which the weak signals disrupt their system. These are the developments that scanning should target and explore. See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The role of trends vs weak signals.

The Inner Game of Foresight

One of the unique features of the Horizons Foresight Method is that it deliberately harnesses our natural mental capacity to model the future. We can recall “pictures” in our minds and replay “movies” from our past experience. We can also create and manipulate pictures and models of completely new ideas in our minds. For instance, humans use this capacity when we weigh pros and cons in our head or when we run “movies” to explore a difficult decision. Indeed, we practice an embryonic version of foresight using tools like extrapolation, impact assessment and scenarios on simple problems in our minds. We often experience this mental modeling as a verbal process—as questions, statements, and stories in words in our head. But if you observe your own mind closely, you will often find there is an underlying visual process.

Over the years, many foresight practitioners (e.g., Senge 1999; Wack 1972) have talked about the central role of mental models in foresight but have not explicitly brought them into the process. The Horizons Foresight Method works directly with participants’ mental models to strengthen and take advantage of this inner game of foresight in the following ways:

Works with people’s mental models. A branch of cognitive science explores the role of mental models in thinking.¹ According to this set of theories,

the mind constructs small-scale models of reality that it uses to anticipate events, to reason, and to underlie explanation . . . Mental models have a structure that corresponds to the structure of what they represent. They are akin to architects’ models of buildings, to molecular biologists’ models of complex molecules, and to physicists’ diagrams of particle interactions . . . Everyday reasoning depends on the simulation of events in mental models.²

According to this theory, the four building blocks in mental models are facts, assumptions, experience, and dialogue. Of necessity, mental models are incomplete representations of reality, and sometimes they are wrong. Policy analysts, managers, and leaders usually have well-developed mental models of the systems they manage. They use these models to run movies in their heads of how a given action could play out within the system so they can test ideas, develop strategies, and make decisions. There are a number of reasons for working directly with people’s mental models. Examining mental models helps us understand how people think a system works. We can combine models from different people’s perspectives to get a more complete picture of the system. With a deeper understanding, we can identify and test the underlying assumptions that shape decisions. While most participants are unaware of this aspect of their mental lives, they are happy to work with it.

Uses graphics and guided imaging to support visualization. Surfacing and describing mental models can be very challenging if it is done as an analytical process using words rather than graphics. Humans can keep only five to seven things at a time in working memory, which makes dialogue and progress on complex topics difficult and frustrating. Good graphics can help the group manage complexity. For instance, complexity is reduced when participants can point to a drawing to talk about how and where a change driver impacts a system. The Horizons Foresight Method uses guided imaging—a visualization technique that helps participants surface and share their mental models of the system. A variety of graphic tools and visualization exercises are used to support sharing and dialogue at every step in the process.

Focuses on the system. For many people, talking about the future feels like staring into the fog. Some kind of structure is helpful. In most cases, putting the system at the center of the study will make it easier and maximize strategic insight. The Horizons Foresight Method surfaces participants’ mental models and then draws a simple system map with nodes and relationships. See Figure 3. Each node is a window into some part of the system that is changing. The diagram helps focus attention and structures the dialogue at each step in the process, allowing participants to challenge and clarify facts and assumptions. The participants run mental simulations to visualize how the system could evolve under different conditions at each step. The focus on the system allows participants to see that future. Working with a clear model that is grounded in current reality but evolves under plausible conditions is key to creating useful foresight.

Explores multiple sources of uncertainty. The Horizons Foresight Method uses the knowledge and visualization capacity of participants to explore five sources of surprise that contribute to uncertainty in the future behavior of a system:

Surprises coming from the places we are not looking—scanning can help.

The cascading (third, fourth, and fifth order) impacts of change as it rolls across the system—cascade diagrams provide the scaffolding to see how change evolves over time.

Changes interacting with each other at the same time—cross-impact analysis is useful.

Lack of awareness of the pathways through which change could flow—system mapping can help.

Lack of imagination as to how unexpected patterns of change could emerge—scenarios embodying different models of change can help.

Looking at each of these sources of surprise in a systematic way provides useful information to reduce uncertainty and understand how the system could behave and evolve.

Surfaces and tests assumptions. Assumptions (i.e., what we believe to be true) are a useful focus for foresight. They shape perception and decisions and are the foundation for mental models. Clarifying current assumptions is a useful first step in policy development. If you state several assumptions about a system, most people will use them to build a mental model instantly and then test it against their own mental model of the topic. A productive dialogue is possible when the mental models are clear. It turns out that assumptions provide a very concise way to communicate findings, especially to senior managers who don’t have time for a fifty-page report. Surfacing and testing assumptions is one of the important functions of the Horizons Foresight Method.

Immerses participants in the future . Most people are focused on the expected future and are less aware of the weak signals or disruptive changes that could impact their policy domain, especially changes coming from beyond their silo or area of responsibility. In a foresight exercise, participants need to be familiar with all the significant (social, technological, economic, environmental, and governance—domestic and international) changes that could disrupt the system. In the Horizons Foresight Method, this information is gathered through scanning and interviews and then presented to participants and users as insights about plausible disruptive changes—ideally with short videos that allow the user to see the evidence in its current emergent state.

Figure 3.

An example of a simple system map of the food security system developed in a Horizons workshop.

The Steps in the Horizons Foresight Method

This process is fluid, dynamic, and iterative. Each step builds a better understanding of the system, how it could evolve and what surprises could emerge. At each step, a large amount of information is gathered, considered, filtered, and then edited to focus attention on the essential building blocks. Simple diagrams and other visual tools provide scaffolding to enable participants to share their models and facilitate dialogue at every step in the process. In Figure 4, the method is presented as a linear process, but in practice it is common to move back and forth among the steps as understanding of the system grows.

Step 0: Frame the problem. There is often pressure to frame the topic of a foresight study in very narrow terms. People think it will be easier to do a small, contained study. In most cases, this will help you understand the expected future, but not identify the surprises that will disrupt the system. Generally speaking, you should include the “external” systems that are the context for your topic. The framing of the problem may change as you learn more about the multiple pathways through which drivers could impact the system.

Step 1: Surface current assumptions . Before any foresight activities start, the Horizons Foresight Method identifies the current, commonly held assumptions about the issue or problem under study. These are the core assumptions that are shaping public policy on the issue today. The current assumptions can be found “buried” in public policy documents and in the ongoing policy dialogue. These assumptions are collected at the outset through interviews and research and then put aside, to be tested for robustness, later in the process.

Step 2: Scan for weak signals . Scanning identifies changes in the domestic and international environments that could have significant implications for the issue and the system. This can involve literature reviews and then interviews which try to surface and probe the mental models of people who have knowledge of the system. The focus is on finding weak signals that could indicate a significant change is possible or underway. Weak signals that appear to have a significant potential for disruption are further developed into insights. Insightful scanning is the foundation of effective foresight.

Step 3: Map the system . The study participants, stakeholders, and invited experts each draw a picture of their mental model of the system. These maps can range from simple process diagrams to complex causal loop diagrams. An attempt is made to develop a group system map that includes the elements where participants think significant change is possible.

Step 4: Select change drivers . All the insights from the scanning phase are reviewed, and those that appear to have a significant, disruptive impact on at least one of the elements in the system map are chosen as potential change drivers for the scenario exercise. At this stage, cascade diagrams are used to explore the potential second-, third-, and fourth-order impacts of the drivers (over time), and cross-impact analysis is used to explore how the chosen drivers and insights could interact with each other (at the same time) to add new information about how the system could evolve and choose the most impactful drivers.

Step 5: Develop system-based scenarios . For each scenario, an archetype and scenario logic are customized to explore strategically useful futures. The state of each driver and insight is deduced from the scenario logic. Then the state of each system element is deduced from all of the preceding steps. At this point, the participants can see what the system could look like under the given conditions. These end-state scenarios offer a vivid snapshot of the key system elements for each future. See Figure 5.

Step 6: Test assumptions and identify challenges . Guided visualization is used to immerse participants in each scenario. Participants are asked to identify challenges and opportunities for which current policies and institutions are not prepared. Finally, the current assumptions (from Step 1) are tested against each scenario for their robustness. Weak assumptions are revised to be more robust.

Figure 4.

Steps in the Horizons Foresight Method.

Figure 5.

Relationship between the system map and the system elements in the scenarios. Developed by Peter Padbury, Policy Horizons Canada.

What Are the Results of the Horizons Foresight Method?

Clarifies planning assumptions. Assumptions play a central role in planning, policy, and decision-making. The Horizons Foresight Method is one of a handful of tools that is able to systematically test the assumptions that planners and decision-makers are using to shape our future.

Identifies emerging policy challenges and opportunities. Looking ten to fifteen years down the road, the process identifies real issues that current policies and institutions are not ready to address, and thus gives government time to prepare for disruptive changes and take advantage of opportunities.

Develops more robust policy and strategy. Foresight provides a context for policy development and planning that enables governments to ensure that proposed policies are robust across the range of plausible futures.

Helps individuals and organizations prepare and rehearse for change. The process of sharing mental models, identifying a set of emerging issues, and developing a set of robust policy assumptions about the future helps analysts and decision-makers imagine the future and rehearse for the challenges that lie ahead.

Who Should Be Involved?

There is value in engaging stakeholders and many others in this kind of process. One of the big challenges with engaging outsiders is they tend to focus on what they know (the expected future) and what they want (their interests). Useful foresight requires that they be aware and ideally knowledgeable about the possible disruptive forces that lie ahead—weak signals and trends that could disrupt the system. If these disruptive forces are ignored or misunderstood, you may be wasting your time. But, in short workshops, it is difficult to do. It takes hours and sometimes days to have a basic understanding of a potential driver like artificial intelligence or blockchain.

One of the ways to solve this dilemma is to run parallel processes. When Horizons uses this method to conduct a foresight study, there is a core team who act as caretakers of the process. They are aware of the tools, concepts, and what can usefully be achieved in foresight. They do the study and systematically seek input from others. In a major study, hundreds of thoughtful people are interviewed during the scanning phase to surface their mental models of the system, in order to understand how different parts of it work and how it could evolve. Then, one or more groups of external participants and stakeholders are invited to do a short, customized version of the process to benefit from their knowledge and the collective interaction of their mental models as input to the study. Given the pressures to digest a huge amount of information about the whole system and potential disruptive changes, the external participants can seldom commit the time needed for an entire study, so the core team does most of the work. The short workshops help the core team understand the system, fill in gaps, and explore new and identify missing viewpoints.

The knowledge and personal qualities of the team, interviewees and participants can make a huge difference in the success or failure of a foresight study. The following personal qualities can be used to screen potential participants and improve the chances of success:

Participants and stakeholders are knowledgeable about one or more parts of the system and represent diverse views or interests.

They have good group skills.

They are curious and open to other views and learning new things.

They are creative and comfortable with thinking outside the box.

They have a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, as it takes time for a group to bring the pieces of the puzzle together.

How Long Does It Take to Do a Study?

Once the core team understands the Horizons Foresight Method, a foresight study on a complex public policy issue can take two to twelve months, where half of that time is spent scanning and conducting interviews to identify potential disruptive changes. In parallel, if a dry run is being done with external participants, it is possible to go through all of the steps with them in two or three days—often spread over a week or two to give participants time to digest and reflect on what people are saying.

How Do You Get Buy-In From Those Who Are Not Involved?

In foresight projects, it is common for the people who are directly involved in the study to be fully committed, but non-participants can be resistant to the results. Horizons uses several ways to engage non-participants in the process. Interviewing senior people to collect their understanding of the system is a useful way to involve them if their time is limited. Often they will be interested in the report, because they want to see what you did with their insights. After the study is complete, Horizons designs exercises for groups to immerse them in the study and to surface and test their mental models. Generally, the best way to communicate the written report is to take the reader through the process in a way that allows them to construct their own mental model and see the future for themselves.

Conclusion

There are many useful approaches to foresight. The Horizons Foresight Method has been designed to address the kinds of uncertainty and complexity that arise in public policy settings. At each stage in a structured process, the Horizons Foresight Method provides scaffolding to help individuals surface and share their own mental models and to construct a collective model of the system and how it could evolve. What is unique about the Horizons Foresight Method is the emphasis on utilizing the amazing capacity of our minds to visualize and run simulations at every step in the foresight process. Most participants report they feel better prepared to deal with a rapidly changing policy environment.

The Horizons Foresight Method focuses on the essential steps to help individuals and groups do useful and strategic foresight. The main results (robust assumptions, plausible futures and emerging challenges and opportunities) have enormous value in forward-looking policy and planning processes.

For further information: a training course with facilitators guides is available at www.horizons.gc.ca.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This method was develop over many years by Peter Padbury with assistance and input from many people at Integrated Studies at University of Waterloo, Studies of the Future at University of Houston, Global Affairs Canada and Policy Horizons Canada but especially Steffen Christensen, Marcus, Ballinger, Duncan Cass-Beggs, Wendy Shultz, Peter Bishop, Oliver Markley, George Francis, Sally Lerner, Robbie Keith and Colin De’Ath.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Peter Padbury

Notes

Author Biography

Peter Padbury is the chief futurist at Policy Horizons Canada, a foresight centre in the Canadian federal government. Over the years, he has lead, practiced, trained and mentored foresight work in a number of government, non-government and UN settings on a very wide range of topics. He has a Master of Science in Studies of the Future from University of Houston and is a founding member of the Association of Professional Futurists.

References

Senge

1999. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House.

Wack

1972. “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead” Harvard Business Review, September. https://hbr.org/1985/09/scenarios-uncharted-waters-ahead