Corporate foresight in Europe: from trend based logics to open foresight

The paper outlines a historical contextualisation of CF practices from the 1980s onward, identifying the underlying assumptions – the ‘dominant logic’ – and opting for a new model of CF as ‘open foresight’.

Abstract

Abstract The paper analyses the role of corporate foresight (CF) as a future intelligence gathering process, which has come into widespread use in a business context where it is confronted with specific contextual, processual and methodological challenges. The results of a 2005/2006 survey on CF by the University of St Gallen in co-operation with Z_punkt are used as a starting point to provide insights into the goals, methods and use of CF in large corporations. Taking into account the challenges facing CF and the factors considered critical for its success, the paper outlines a historical contextualisation of CF practices from the 1980s onward, identifying the underlying assumptions – the 'dominant logic' – and opting for a new model of CF as 'open foresight'. Keywords: corporate foresight wavesopen foresighttrend researchcontextual logicstrategic foresight Notes 1. The quoted data from Müller Citation(2006) stems from an unpublished paper. See also http://www.strategicforesight.ch. 2. The Z_punkt (Burmeister et al. Citation2002) study included data from 26 German corporations, while Becker interviewed 18 European companies. 3. Finally included were 40 companies, as four failed at least one criterion for inclusion. 4. This addition is not a result of the study by Müller, but an addition by Z_punkt. It is based on our practical experience in the field, and on discussions with Corporate Foresight experts and colleagues in Europe. For more information on this question, please refer to Heinzelbecker Citation(2006). 5. By 'hard' objectives Müller is referring to those objectives which are explicitly and functionally related to specific strategic tasks and processes. 6. The majority of these companies (16 out of 30) work with qualitative and quantitative objectives. 7. Of these companies, 63.6% overhaul and improve their process annually, one company each does its process review monthly and every four years, respectively, while – still surprising enough – only one company admits to 'never' overhauling its foresight process. 8. Although this is not elaborated on in detail here, it is important to stress the parallels between public (national, regional, state or political body financed) and corporate foresight with respect to critical success factors. While the characteristics or aims, the organisational structure and the degree of inclusiveness or participation tend to differ in public foresight processes, the bottom line on success factors is the same. If a project or unit does not produce results that can be operationalised and are helpful for decision-making, it risks losing support, credibility and justification. The IPTS FOR-LEARN project (see 2006 Seville FTA conference paper by Olivier da Costa and Philine Warnke, or the project's website http://forlearn.jrc.es/) provides an analysis of how the impact of public foresight can be strengthened. 9. Corporations considered as avant-garde in the emerging practice of context-driven Open Foresight include German BASF AG on the one hand, with its stress on closely linking foresight to strategic decision-making as effectively as possible, and, Philips, on the other, with its approach focussing on linking customer and context perspectives to innovation and growth opportunities (see http://www.design.philips.com/about/design/newvaluebyonedesign/section-13991/index.html).