19.02, mulder — from forecasting to backcasting
DESCRIPTION
SD Course in Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, 12-23 Febraury 2006TRANSCRIPT
February 21, 2007
1
From forecasting to Backcasting: Developing Shared Future Visions for
Sustainable Development
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management
February 21, 2007 2
Why forecasting?
• Improves quality of debate?
• Suspect: technocracy?• Control dilemma
- the earlier a debate takes place, the more options there are for technological steering
entrenchment
February 21, 2007 3
Control dilemma with forecasting of impacts?Control dilemma for new technology
February 21, 2007 4
Forecasting possible?
• Fundamental problem: non-linearities• Problem of Induction• Historic empiric correlations are insufficient if there is
no clear causal relationsship
February 21, 2007 5
Who is the first to buy a telephone?
Some products become more attractive as others buy similar products: especially high-tech products: (computer, fax, phone, car, video)
EXAMPLE OF A NON LINEAR PHENOMENON
February 21, 2007 6
Foresight instead of forecasting, but how?
* Monitoring, trend watching* ’historic’ methods* ’expert’ methods* experiments* modelling
February 21, 2007 7
Monitoring
study of
- professional journals- patents/patent trends searches - meetings- Web searches- annual reports/media
February 21, 2007 8
‘historic’ methods
presupposition: historic parallels
historic analogydiffusion curvesS-curves
February 21, 2007 9
February 21, 2007 10
Extrapolations
• Based on hypotheses such as• Linear growth• S-curve• Envelope curve• Fisher-Prey, Gompertz diffusionmodels
February 21, 2007 11
February 21, 2007 12
Expert judgment
• If there are no reference points for extrapolation• To check a quantitative forecast
February 21, 2007 13
experts
• Are always biased• Positive in regard to technology in general IEEE onderzoek
• Positive in regard to the area of expertise (nuclear fusion, self selection)
The social structure of disciplines prohibits open communication regarding the future (interdependencies, prejudices, publication priorities)
February 21, 2007 14
Delphi method
Delphi:• survey among experts in several rounds• anonymous feed back of arguments & estimates• Revision of judgments• Consensus in 3-4 rounds
Criticism:• group bias remains• strategic behavior by mutual contact• Only for experts within a discipline
February 21, 2007 15
Experiences Delphi
• Used since 1959• Good results, • Not just forecasting: it is also intervention in a
discipline
February 21, 2007 16
Example: External propulsion of vehicles- 50 experts (global, 50% return, variatie)
• 14 technologies• 4 technologies were promising• Many experts changed their view during Delphi
process
February 21, 2007 17
Failed Forecasts
• Misjudgement of • Speed of Technological change: (1950s, flying cars)• expert assessment of technologies (eg the forecast
regarding superiority of synthetics, 1970)• citizens judgments (nuclear power)• Public policy (glass recycling)
February 21, 2007 18
Scenarios:
To paint the various possible and consistent futures in a complex situation:-not: emergency scenarios-but: credible stories that stimulate the creativeness of people in thinking of future threats and opportunities
- Robust options- cheap precautions
February 21, 2007 19
During stable times, the mental model of a successful decision maker and unfol-ding reality match... In times of rapid change and increased complexity, how-ever, the manager's mental model beco-mes a dangerously mixed bag: rich detail and understanding can coexist with dubi-ous assumptions .. and illusory projec-tions (Wack, 1985)
February 21, 2007 20
ingredients
- technology- economy- demographics- culture- regulation- the (global) environment- competitors actions
February 21, 2007 21
- in all scenario's, the corporation meets its goals. - in all scenario's, the corporation does not meet its goals. - in a surprise free scenario, the corporation meets its goal, but not in other scenarios.- in a surprise free scenario the corporation does not meet its goals, in alternative scenarios, it does.
Scenario Results: Stimulating creative discussion
February 21, 2007 22
Backcasting: Looking back from the future to design actions now
• Involve various stakeholders• Start with needs, not with technology• Analyze the need, what do stakeholders really want?• Build consensus
February 21, 2007 23
Future-oriëntation
Backcasting
Backcas
ting
2000 2050
ECOEFFICIENCY
Intermediate steps
Backcasting: from vision to action
TIME
February 21, 2007 24
Why Backcasting?
• Clear future visions have a strong guiding power: Man on the Moon,
• Defining and clarifying an attractive sustainable future
• It forces to specify norms and values
• Alternative for traditional forecasting
• Fit for ‘wicked problems’
• Experiences:• The Natural Step
• Netherlands: Sustainable Technology Development program
February 21, 2007 25
Backcasting: characteristics
• From future vision to action by design and analysis
• Organize the process carefully, the process is important,
• Facilitate learning of participants• Facilitate the social embedding of the results
February 21, 2007 26
Stakeholder Involvement
OPTIONS
EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT
SOCIETALORGANISATIONS
INDUSTRY
SCIENCEAND
TECHNOLOGY
February 21, 2007 27
Backcasting in 5 steps
Step 1 Strategic Problem orientation Analysis
Step 2 Prepare a vision of a desirable future Vision
Step 3 Back-casting What do we need to make this come true?
Step 4 Further elaboration, detailing
Step 5 Implementation, Policy implications, organizing embedding & follow-up
February 21, 2007 28
Toolkit for Backcasting:4 kinds of methods
• Participation and interaction
• workshops, visioning, creativity stimulation, brain storms
• Design- and scenario-methods: modeling, forecasting
• Analysis- and modeling-methods
• LCA, effect analysis, stakeholder analysis
• Management-methods for Process-, Project-, and Network management
February 21, 2007 29
Step 1
Strategic Problem orientation• Which needs to fulfill?• Trends, and possible changes that are relevant for this
need?• What is the problem, how is this problem perceived by
various groups?• What are the unsustainabilities and what are the causes?• Who are the stakeholders?• What are potentially directions to seek solutions?
Methods• Actor/Stakeholder analysis, socio-technical map• Interactive methods (interviews, workshops, etc)
February 21, 2007 30
Example: Soy Fodder - pigs – meat products
The Netherlands is importing large amounts of Soy fodder from Brazil, where it is often grown in areas that were cleared from tropical rainforest.
The soy fodder is used to feed pigs in a specific region. Pigs manure creates local ammonia contamination.
The pigs (or the pigs meat) is often transported to Italy. Some of the meat is afterwards returned as real ‘Parma Ham’.
The proteins that are actually consumed only account for a few percent of the plant proteins in soy fodder.
February 21, 2007 31
Strategic Problem Orientation
• What is the need?• What are the current unsustainabilities?• What will probably be stakeholders?
February 21, 2007 32
Step 2
Prepare a desirable future• Terms of Reference?• What socio/technical options are available? • Are the unsustainabilities solved?• Which technology is needed? • How does it affect culture and structure of society? • What are important trends, and events?• Could we make the future vision even more sustainable?
Methods• workshops • Creativity stimulation, designing• Consensus formation• Illustrations
February 21, 2007 33
Step 3
Back-casting What do we need?• Which changes are needed to make the future vision come
true (technologic, cultural, organization/structure)?• Who can implement the changes. How could the changes
be made attractive for these actors?• Could we define stepping stones?
Methods• Analysis and modeling
February 21, 2007 34
Step 4
Elaboration, analysis• A possible design of a socio-technical system• Effects of these systems for various stakeholders?• What are drivers, barriers? • What need to be in follow-up (policy, research,
development, publicity)?
Methods• Methods for Environmental Impact Analysis, consumer
studies, economic analysis of elements of system• Technology Assessment methods (checklist, cost/benefit,
etc)
February 21, 2007 35
Step 5
Agenda, embedding & follow-up• What should be done to guarantee successful further
activity after a backcasting project has been carried out?• How to embed specific projects and proposals?• Agreements on further process and conflict resolution.
Methods• Communication• Management
General• Project management, team building, communication• (process) evaluation