10 TRENDS IN STRATEGIC FORESIGHT

FOR DEFENCE AND SECURITYSTEPHAN DE SPIEGELEIREHCSS SENIOR SCIENTIST

STOCKHOLM, NOVEMBER 28, 2012

Strategy is about ‘the big picture’

? ???

‘Armed Force’ as a Reflection of the Age

‘Arms’ Bare Hands+ Cold Hot

Energy Human Mechanical Thermal

Unit Clan Settlement City Nation-State

Nomadic(Hunter/gatherer) Industrial society

Post-industrial society:Information and knowledge age

Agrarian society

Age

Arms ?

Energy ?

Unit ? [..., networks, cities, societies, individuals,…]

Age

Strategic direction

Strategic portfolioanalysis

Capa-bility

options

Eco-system options

Policy optio

ns

STRONG in the 21st Century:STRategic Orientation and Navigation Guidance

Strategic Orientation Strategic Navigation

CD&E

Decide

Performance indicators(design/collect)

ActForesight

Strategic Risk Assessment

External Analysis

Internal Analysis

Strategic boundary conditions

2

2 – Strategic feedback loop

1

1 – Strategic learning

Value for Money Analysis

Strategic direction

Strategic portfolioanalysis

Capa-bility

options

Eco-system options

Policy optio

ns

Strategic Orientation Strategic Navigation

CD&E

Decide

Performance indicators(design/collect)

ActForesight

Strategic Risk Assessment

External Analysis

Internal Analysis

Strategic boundary conditions

2

2 – Strategic feedback loop

1

1 – Strategic learning

Value for Money Analysis

Trend 1 – (A bit) more ‘serious’ strategic analysis… but differentially so

Trend 1 – (A bit) more ‘serious’ strategic analysis

Tactical

Operational

Strategic

US

Tactical

Operational

Strategic

Europe(Best case)

Strategic

Europe(Typical case)

Personal and notional drawings!

Foresight and Defence PlanningA Short History

Hind-

sight

Side-sight

Insight

from “plan and pray” to “sense and respond”

Meta-Foresight

Fore-casting

Teleological

Planning

Point Scenarios

Multi-scenario planning (1-on-1)

Parameterized scenarios

Robust planning

ForesightRisk/Uncertainty

‘FAR’ planning

First principle

s

FORESIGHT FOR DEFENCE:10 TRENDS

10 trends1. Foresight for defense (still?) going strong2. More balance between time horizons3. Towards whole-of-government/society4. Diversification of types of foresight5. Diversification of foresight tools/methods6. From foresight 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.07. Towards better actioning of foresight8. More balance between outside-in/inside-

out9. Towards new foresight products

Trend 1 – Interest in foresight (still?) growing

Trend 2 – Better Balance between Planning Horizons: Away from Presentism?

60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s

Low

Medium

HighPersonal and notional estimates !!!

Defence Planning-Horizons:• current• medium-term• long-term

PLANNING EFFORT

YEAR

Trend 3 – Towards whole-of-government (slowly)

Whole-of-Government

Whole-of-Government

Stovepiped

Inte

rnal

sec

urity

External security

Whole-of-Society

Integrated security foresightWhole-of-

Society

Report themes

and scenarios

Planning for National Security –The Dutch Model (2007)

1. Government-wide analysis

A. Strategic foresight

B. Horizon-scanning

B. Thematic in-depth foresight

Process

Product

Decision-making

Report strategic foresight

Report Threat picture

Cabinet decides onthemes for thematicin-depth analyses

NationalRisk Assessment

C. National

risk-assessme

nt

Risk prioritizati

on

3. Follow-up

Legislation

Measures

Policy

2. Strategic planning

Required capabilies

Current capabiliiti

es

Capability requirements

Capabilities gap

-

Planning

assumptions

Work programme tasks and capabilities

Cabinet selects

priorities on basis of

national risk

assessment

Cabinet decides on capabilities

to be strengthened

through normal budget system

Foresight Risk assessment Capabilities planning

Government-Wide National Risk Assessment Methodology

Government-Wide National Risk Assessment  – Assessing likelihood

Hazards

Class Quantitative (%) Qualitative description of danger

A < 0,05 Highly improbable

B 0.05 – 0.5 Improbable

C 0.5 – 5 Possible

D 5 – 50 Probable

E 50 – 100 Highly probable

Dangers

Class Qualitative description of danger

ANo concrete indication, and event is thought to be inconceivable

B No concrete indication, but event is conceivable

C No concrete indication, but event is conceivable

D Event is thought to be quite probable

E Concrete indication event will occur

Impact assessment

Territorial Human

Economic

EcologicalPol-Soc stability

Government-Wide National Risk Assessment – Assessing Impact

Government-Wide National Risk Assessment – 2008 Risk diagram

Trend 4 – Diversification of types of foresight

Strategic security planning

RiskOperati

onal plannin

g

No-surprises

future

Optimization

Contingency

planning

Point-scenarios

Robustness

Risk plannin

gBroader

foresight toolb

oxFRANKness

(Deep(ening?)) Uncertainty

Uncertainty planning

‘The Black Swan’

First principles

After Paul Davis

Fore

sigh

tTy

pe o

fpla

nnin

gPla

nn

ing

Pin

cip

le

Trend 5 - Diversification of foresight methods

HCSS ‘flares’: 8 different angles …

Timehorizon

Research method

Level of Abstraction

HighVery abstract

LowVery concrete ShortLong

Quantitative

Qualitative

…along (at least) three dimensions

‘Events’ in scenario framework

Online expertforum

Risks •What do you see as the major risks to national and international stability and security in the coming 5-15 years?

Relevance•International•National•Criteria

Elaboration•Driving forces•Actors•Regions

Arms A

Estimatedopposing arms A

Desired arms A

New arms underdevelopment A

Estimateddomestic arms A

+

+

+

-

+

+Arms B

Estimatedopposing arms B

Desired arms B

New arms underdevelopment B

Estimateddomestic arms B

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

Time to perceive armsopposing arms A

Sensitivity of opposingarms production A

Bias in estimatingopposing arms A

Time to perceivearms opposing arms B

Sensitivity of opposingarms production B

Bias in estimatingopposing arms B

++

-

-+

TRADITIONAL ARMS RACE - CONCEPTUAL VIEW

Trend 6 – Towards Foresight 3.0

Foresight 1.0

Prima Donna

Foresight 2.0

Connecting people /Networks of (remarkable) people

Foresight 3.0

Connecting visions

Meta-fore – Etymology and Meaning

Meta-analysis of existing foresight exercises Without pre-conceived (ideological, methodological, cultural,

…) notions (Attempt to) carry the field of foresight beyond its current

status

Being ‘honest’ (i.e. humble) about the future

Ancient Greek

μετά (meta), “above, beyond’”

φέρω (pherō), “‘I bear, carry’”

μεταφέρω (metapherō) “‘I transfer, apply’”

Meta-

Μετα-φορά(metaphora)

ME, probably translation of

Latin ‘providentia’

Fore-sight

fore sight

Foresight ≠

Forecast!!!

fore

Metafore C6+2 protocol

“Command and Control’

Conceptualize

Collect

Code

Cogitate

Commit to paper

Communicate

Collection - Method

29

Sources Search algoritm

Sources

‘Serious’

‘Conflict’

‘Future’

4. Processing - manual

Future contours of conflictThe sources - breakdowns

Total: 265 sources

36

Global parameters - Overview

1 2 3 4 5Actors Blocs of States Pairs of States State and non-state vs. non-state State vs. non-state Non-state vs. non-state ActorsAim Physical degradation Obtain/retain/occupy Political/economic degradation Stabilize Survive AimDefinition War Militarized interstate disputes Tensions between non-state actors Political/economic tensions Between individuals DefinitionDistinctiveness Low Leans low Medium Leans high High DistinctivenessDomain Traditional Dimensions Modern military dimensions Political Economic Human Terrain DomainExtensiveness Global Regional Sub-regional National Domestic ExtensivenessImpetus Data Interest Value Relationship Structural ImpetusLength Years Months Days Hours Minutes LengthMeans Physical Political Economic Electronic/Cyber Information/ Psychological MeansPace Low Leans low Medium Leans high High PaceSalience Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Salience

1 2 3 4 5

Parameters – Values across Languages

1 2 3 4 5Actors Blocs of States Pairs of States State and non-state vs. non-state State vs. non-state Non-state vs. non-state ActorsAim Physical degradation Obtain/retain/occupy Political/economic degradation Stabilize Survive AimDefinition War Militarized interstate disputes Tensions between non-state actors Political/economic tensions Between individuals DefinitionDistinctiveness Low Leans low Medium Leans high High DistinctivenessDomain Traditional Dimensions Modern military dimensions Political Economic Human Terrain DomainExtensiveness Global Regional Sub-regional National Domestic ExtensivenessImpetus Data Interest Value Relationship Structural ImpetusLength Years Months Days Hours Minutes LengthMeans Physical Political Economic Electronic/Cyber Information/ Psychological MeansPace Low Leans low Medium Leans high High PaceSalience Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Salience

1 2 3 4 5

Drivers – Rank across Languages

5. Vizualization – manual (Papermachines)

International Organizations

5. Vizualization – automatic (Leximancer) Academic literature

5. Vizualization – automatic (Leximancer) Academic literature

Knowns

Trend 7 – More focus on non-’known knowns’ (1/2)

Unknowns

‘Lesser and included’ A few point scenarios

Knowns

‘Wise Prediction’/Big gambler

(Point-)Scenario-planning/Scenario-gambling

Unknowns

Trend 7 – More focus on non-’known knowns’ (2/2)

Trend 8 – ‘Anchoring’ foresight

“it is all too easy to overestimate the effects of these exercises, particularly when you consider the rhetoric surrounding some of them. Closer examination shows that their impact on research and innovation systems is typically rather marginal, and they tend to lead to incremental, evolutionary changes, often at the edges.”

Mapping Foresight. Revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future. EFMN, November 2009

Trend 9 – more ‘inside-out’ foresight

Inside-out

semadyson

integratie

generalto-

security

Outside-in

The butterfly-model

security -to-

themes/caps

Outside-in / General to security

outside-in

futureenvironments =>

capabilities

vision

future me’s

integration

inside-outwhat are we (/do we want to be) good at?

Trend 9 – More ‘inside-out’ foresight

outside-in

futureenvironments =>

capabilities

inside-out

what are / dowe want to be

good at?

vision

future me’s

integration(future) capability requirements - DOTMLPFI

Trend 9 – More ‘inside-out’ foresight

Trend 10 – Towards new foresight products

Orientation Navigation

‘Leader’

‘Strategic monitor’ = image(s) in the leaders’s head

Traditional STRONG

Commandant +Staffs

CEO +Executive Board

Orientation Navigation

‘Strategic monitor’ = regular planning document

Industrial STRONG

Navigation

Strategic monitor = diverse ‘open’ future-base

Orientation

Post-Industrial STRONG?But we need a lubricant!!!

Orientation under complexity

Designing an Options Portfolio under Complexity

STRONG under Complexity