Keywords: forecasting, action learning, strategic planning

  Robert Burke[i] 

While no one can predict the future, however, futurists argue that applied futures thinking is a more realistic way of planning than many other methods including strategic planning.  This is because futurists apply foresight as the basis of futures methodology.  Foresight differs from forecasting, the strategic planning methodology, as developed below. 

Indeed it is not only futurists who challenge strategic planning.  Henry Minzberg, a leading management academic, in his book ‘The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning’[1] argues that the reasons why strategic planning often falls down is because many organisations conceive of it as a completed plan  “set in stone”.  Strategic thinking, on the other hand, allows for flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances which means the plan is dynamic and, in today’s climate of rapid change, increasingly being modified to reflect the changing environment. 

The major difference is that contrary to popular belief futurists do not predict the future as such whereas strategic planners, the forecasters, attempt to. (Igor Ansoff)[2] Futurists look at trends and drivers, which are beyond individual or organisational control, from which various scenarios can emerge through challenging foresight rather than planned forecasting.  Igor Ansoff calls planned forecasting the visibility of the future, which is measured by the predicability of information about the future, available at decision time based on a free market economy.  Because there can be many responses to global trends and drivers, beyond the free market economy, futurists would argue that there should also be many scenarios or possible futures based on the collective effect of all the trends and drivers including, but not exclusive to, the free market economy.  The tragic terrorist attack on New York and Washington on 11^th September 2001 are a testament to this. 

All of these futures should be plausible; some may even be considered probable.  From all, however, plans should be developed from which practical applied futures thinking can prepare organisations for the ‘unexpected’ and plan for their ‘preferred’ future at a given selected time in the future.  This methodology expands the organisations learning capability and, I would suggest, earning capability.  Jack Welch, the legendary CEO of GE clearly understood this with his last initiative as CEO when he launched a major program he described as “destroyyourbusiness.com”.[3]   Welch clearly believed that it is sometimes necessary to destroy the old in order to create the new, what Lestor Thurow calls ‘Constructive Destruction’[4]. 

Once the picture of the future for each different scenario has been developed organisations can then begin the process of ‘backcasting’ (that is planning backwards) to put in place milestones that need to be achieved, at a particular time, in order to reach your preferred future. 

Probably the most famous example of this (and perhaps the first) is Royal Dutch Shell who, through scenario planning, had foresight into the early seventies oil crisis.  As a result they were prepared for it, and had a plan in place should it occur.  As a consequence when it did occur Shell actually benefited from it becoming the 2^nd largest oil company in the world (from seventh position) literally over night.  Curiously however, Shell still only looked at econometrics, at that stage, and although they were well advanced in their scenario planning they hadn’t seriously enough considered the social consequences and valuemetrics (that is other values including economic such as cultural values, ecocentric values, social values etc) in their plans.  They consequently paid dearly during the Nigeria experience (where in 1995 leading opponent Ken Saro-Wiwa, a well-known writer and eight associates who on ethical grounds opposed the Nigerian military regime were executed and many believed Shell could have intervened and stopped the executions) and the Brent Spa experience, also 1995 (the collapse of Shell’s oil rig in the North Sea and the consequential environmental threat)[5].  People in their droves avoided the Shell bowser in protest at Shell’s actions, actions that affected Shell’s ‘bottom line’.  As a result Shell were one of the first global mega organisations to seriously adopt the triple bottom line (financial, environmental and social) and now report to the world on each. 

But arguably there is a fourth factor to be added to the bottom line that of future generations.  The quadruple bottom line states that if an organisation plans to do something today that will adversely affect future generations then they should not do it until such time as they can guarantee that future generations will not be adversely affected. 

A good example of this is BHP and the Fly River Papua New Guinea. Not only did BHP close up shop because the Fly River was devastated by them (its adverse environmental impact as a result of BHP’s activities) its decision has meant financial loss to the community, a loss of social cohesion for the community and a loss of future prospects for both current and future generations.  

The OK Tedi Mining Ltd, its parent company, BHP and the PNG Government must equally be held responsible for polluting the Fly River, reported South Fly MP Gabia Gagarimabu[6].

Mr Gagarimabu said it was many of the policy decisions made by them that had caused such an environmental problem which was beyond repair. “Past successive PNG governments have traded off the Fly River environment for short-term socio-economic gains,” he said. 

“Compensation payments in terms of taxes and royalties received by the PNG and Fly River Provincial Government and local landowners, which amounts to about K500 million during the past 15 years, is not enough considering the long-term environmental impacts and physiological stress the mine has caused to communities in the river catchment.’”

In a detailed statement made August 23^rd, 1999, Mr Gagarimabu said the public revelation by OTML and BHP that environmental impacts in the river system had exceeded those previously predicted was an indication that OTML and BHP had been interested in making huge profits without due consideration for the environment and the livelihood of the local people. 

We can see from this example how attention to the quadruple bottom line may have produced a different, arguably more sustainable and prosperous, bottom line for both BHP and the Fly River community.  BHP’s current CEO, Paul Anderson, clearly recognises this as the new BHP Charter explained in his article for the winter/spring 2001 edition of the Mt Eliza Business Review[7] “We value: Safety and the Environment – An overriding commitment to safety and environmental responsibility”.  This needed to be strongly stated as the BHP Charter has as its purpose  “…..to create value through the discovery, development, and conversion of natural resources and the provision of customer focused solutions”.  

Still futurists can have very different opinions on where they see importance based on the worldview they hold.  For example Tim Flannery, author of ‘The Future Eaters’[8] has a very different view on population for Australia (6-10 million) than does Phil Ruthven, IBIS Research, (100-150 million)[9].  If you took an ecocentric view of the planet (humans are an intrinsic part of it but not owners of it), as Flannery does, then you would probably agree with him.  If you took a western worldview (the planet is owned by humans and is here to be of use value to humans) then you would probably agree with Ruthven.  No serious study, that I am aware of, has ever been done on what is the optimum demographics for Australia.  It is probable that the current Australian leadership favours the western worldview, which favours the free market economy, as demonstrated by Australia’s reaction to the US Bush administration stand of the kyoto Agreement.  This, perhaps, is the critical leadership question. 

A well illustrated example of these differing worldviews was illustrated by Tom Gosling of Sustainable Population Australia in his letter to the editor of Australian Business News (July 2001)[10] commenting on Charles Kovess article (Australian Business News June 2001 edition)[11] 

“Charles Kovess……seems proud of his hairy-chested ambition to see Australia’s population grow to 50 million but this growth for the sake of growth and it doesn’t make sense.  

Australians actually had a much higher standard of living in world terms when their population was much smaller…..After all countries like Sweden can make Volvos and Saabs and jet aircraft with only half our population and enjoy an excellent standard of living without the natural resources we have…  

Far from having vision, I think Mr Kovess totally lacks vision because he cannot see the sense of having a rise per capita spending power rather than a mere rise in population numbers.”  

So the lingering question is why is it that strategic planning (the set in stone model) is still so popular given the Shell story and many others like it?  Is it because it pretends to claim it can predict the future, which, undoubtably, is very attractive?  Arguably, however, it may probably be because strategic planning of this nature is simpler, its usually linear and projects the wishes (hopes) of the organisation in economic terms.  It rarely requires thinking the unthinkable (global shifts in power, changes in national structure such as the Balkans, major discontinuities such as the terrorist attack of 11^th September 2001), or learning in the unknown (non-linear, chaos – order and disorder together).  All too often this common form of strategic planning projects what the organisation wishes (hopes), based on free market economics, to happen often regardless of what are the world trends and drivers outside the organisations control.  Jack Welch referred to this as not enough candor.  When asked what he meant by “candor” he replied. 

“I mean facing reality, seeing the world as it is rather than as you wish it were”.[12] 

Strategic planning often is based on the “facts” of the past (if you want to see my future –look at my past as my past is what will be repeated – only this time – better!).  It is rather like the baby-boomer derived education system.  This system still clings on and is based on being teacher-driven (we will tell what you need to know based on what we know is important).  The alternative being an education system that is learner-driven where the quality of the question is what is most important as there can be many effective answers.  But if the question is a not a good question can it be expected that the answer will be a good answer? (for example “who are you going to vote for in the next federal election Liberal or Labor?  Rather than perhaps  “What kind of nation should Australia be in a globalised world that your vote will help achieve?”). 

This is the argument that is at the foundation of action learning where the Revans formulae is Learning = programmed learning + questioning insights (L = P + Q).  Programmed learning is that learning we get from school and higher education bodies.  It is necessary and of vital importance but is only part of the learning process.  Questioning insights is reflection and double-loop learning that is usually a difficult skill to acquire in western cultures because of our educational system being grounded in the time/dump examination trial model.  Reg Revans is the father of action learning and author of many books including The ABC of Action Learning. 

Applied futures thinking is akin to anticipatory action learning (where Sohail Inayatullah[13] has modified Revans formula to L = P + Q + Ways of Knowing [WoK]) being an applied science and able to have the players act the preferred future – now. In an increasingly globalised multicultural and multidiversified world anticipatory action learning is proving to be highly effective.

 The following model is my attempt at a more effective model, incorporating anticipatory action learning, for achieving sustainable futures and has drawn of the work of Inayatullah, Richard Slaughter, Richard Bawden and Malcolm Davies: 

Figure 1

Learning in the Unknown 

Anticipatory action learning has the potential to be a new powerful trend because it accepts that there are many ways of knowing beyond the western developed Judaic-Christian way of knowing such as Islam, Confucion, Buddist, Women’s, Indigenous etc ways of knowing. 

Tony Stevenson[14], immediate Past President, World Futures Studies Federation, writes that from such a mindset, education would play a different role from where it is now fast heading, that is to apply knowledge and skills to achieve predetermined goals for the ruling, global elite. Instead, the futures-oriented educationist could encourage a participative exploration of alternative future goals and active creation of new cultures to meet the particular needs of the local learners in a world that has been globalised. Such a task would question any blind subservience to global power and encourage knowledge and skills for the development of appropriate, evolving local cultures. 

He continues to argue that to nurture such a new mindset, the university curriculums would need to encourage a sharper focus on things now being taught more extensively in many primary schools, even if at a different level. While universities would not abandon the imparting of professional knowledge and skills, these would now be offered within a new pluralist environment that would ensure experiences such as:

·        exposure to a variety of mindsets, not just the dominant one

·        understanding human consciousness and creating alternative tools for thought and change

·        thinking across a range of mindsets, clearly declaring the epistemological assumptions, or 'clean epistemological accounting', as Francisco Varela called it

·        critically questioning personal assumptions and traditional values

·        exploring new life patterns and cultures, and social inventions generally

·        integrating theory and practice, and quantitative and qualitative inquiry

·        interdisciplinary understanding

·        lifetime learning

·        design and delivery of learning to suit local conditions, specific cultures and a variety of learners

·        intercultural and intergenerational exchange and sensitivity

·        long-term thinking (futures) and responsibility for future generations. 

My belief is that business is leading this revolution in learning in many instances and that business will be the most effective medium to shift thinking towards the above model.  I believe this to be the case because business seems to take the question of leadership seriously and is shifting the nexus between business and philosophy (the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview) to business and psychology/chaos (the Chaordic worldview) (Hock)[15].  

Leadership has always been, and will continue to be, the key to prosperity.  An ecocentric leadership model reflects a worldview more appropriate for the 21 century (Capra, 1997)[16]. The impact of people such as Edgar Schein, professor of management at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on leadership and culture and Australia’s own leadership development programs, available from Mt Eliza Business School, will continue to be felt and offer meaning and purpose to both individual and organisational life as we shift to this more appropriate ecocentric worldview. 

The Evolving Action Learning Model to Anticipatory Action Learning (AAL)  

An action planning/action research method was first employed using Revans' equation:  

                                                                  L = P + Q  

where

L is Learning, P is Programmed learning and Q is Questioning Insights  (Revans: 1982)[17].  

Reg Revans is widely acknowledged as being the person responsible for bringing action learning into a practical environment.  The two main works of Revans were his "Origins and Growth of Action Learning" 1982 and "The Golden Jubilee of Action Learning" 1989.  

The action learning process is a sequence of steps of plan ® act ® observe ® reflect and repeat this sequence as many times as is necessary to deal with a particular problem. Action learning must have the component of action research (Zuber-Skerrit, 1991)[18]. Zuber-Skerrit describes action research by defining it in a model she calls CRASP.  This model integrates educational theory and teaching practice through action research.  The CRASP model of action research is:  

            C ritical                         (and self critical) collaborative enquiry by

            R eflective                    practitioners being

            A ccountable                and making the results of their enquiry public

            S elf Evaluating             their practice and engaged in

            P articipative                 problem solving and continuing professional development.

  Action research, therefore, is practical and involved in the actual workings of people in their workplace, learning from the results so that future problem solving is made more effective.  

            "First, most people define learning too narrowly as mere "problem solving", so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment.  Solving problems is important.  But if learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inward.  They need to reflect critically on their own behaviour, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organisation's problems, and then change how they act.

            In particular, they must learn how the very way they go about defining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right."  

            (Argyris, 1991)[19]  

It can be argued that the traditional education system does not encourage action learning but rather focuses on repetitive learning and learning for repetition.  Mumford states that the main steps in the rational approach to the learning process are:  

                        *           Collect data on what needs to be learned

                        *           Set objectives for learning

                        *           Define standards of performance

                        *           Monitor achievement

                        *           Review the reasons for deviation from standard

                        *           Decide what additional research is necessary  

                        (Mumford, 1980)[20]  

Davies (1997)[21] argues that the non-rational approach to learning is where both strategic and operational values are amenable to managerial or rational analysis at both cognitive and behavioural levels but cultural values are not. At least not at the behavioural level. It is at this level where leadership becomes paramount in creating a cultural milieu, which underwrites the successful management of the organisation’s strategic and cultural value processes and systems.  It is in this sense that leadership and culture are conceptually intertwined. 

Marquardt (1999)[22] added implementation to Revans equation and we now had L=P+Q+I arguing that action without implementation is not action but reaction.  At about the same time Sohail Inayatullah in his 1999 David Sutton Fellowship[23] work for the International Management Centres Association argued that the intention is to create the practical and conceptual underpinning of "Anticipatory Action Learning." This would be a questioning process that specifically takes issue with the present, which focuses on creating a foundationally participatory process about what Futures we desire. 

Inayatullah found that Action learning and Futures studies potentially have a great deal in common, not only in terms of their disruptive methodological orientation but as well their intention to create a different world, to understand selves and processes in different terms - to see what is not commonly seen and create what is not commonly known.  By moving out of conventional frames of reference, both allow inquiry to move from litany, immediate concerns and epistemological assumptions to deeper causal, structural, world-view and myth levels. 

Other ways of knowing - the multicultural turn - thus naturally can find space to be expressed.

Action learning and Futures studies also have a commitment to connecting desired states in the future with the present. Thus, within Futures studies, instead of taking a means to ends planning approach, participants attempt to backcast the future. The future imagined is thus related to the past. The trajectory from the present to the future is remembered. This memory becomes translated into not so much a plan - which only is guise for non-action - but as with action learning, concrete experiments, a new program, a new project, for example. The success or failure of these experiments can then feed back into the desired visions. Through action learning experimentation the vision can thus retain its robustness.

  The evolution of the Revans model : 

L=P+Q                         Revans

L=P+Q+I                      Marquardt (+implementation)

L=P+Q+C+I                  Davies (+ non-rational, culture)

L=P+Q+WoK+C+I         Inayatullah (+ ways of knowing) 

Anne Ward (2001)[24] linked these trends developed by Davies and Inayatullah to organisational learning and her following chart gives concern to how organisational learning is still largely undertaken. 

Why Organisational Change Programs Fail

  Figure 2

Why Organisational Change Programs Fail (Ward, 2001)  

CONCLUSION 

Contrary to what business believes it is understanding intangibles assets, not tangible assets that matter.

“…the industrial landscape is no longer shaped by physical flows of material goods and services, but is characterised by stocks and flows of ideas, images, symbols and information.  In today’s scenario, market services and intangible goods now contribute over three-quarters of U.S. GDP, and intangible inputs today account for over 70% of value added in the automotive and consumer goods industries”[25]  

The staring points for this understanding are;

·        understanding futures

·        understanding intangibles, and

·        understanding business strategy. 

From this we can deduce that Anticipatory Action Learning offers a more effective way of business planning than strategic planning as it operates in all three spheres.  Ways of Knowing takes on the implications of non-linear thinking and is critical to the effectiveness of Anticipatory Action Learning as Inayatullah intended.  Non-linear thinking takes on the challenge of Complex Adaptive Systems (which organisations are) and is thus effective in chaos management and economics as championed by Parker and Stacey (1994)[26] who state (p.39-40);

“Social organisations which are non-linear and have the capacity to behave as dissipative structures exhibit fractual-like qualities……Since human systems, including business organisations and economics, are non-linear feedback systems, the lessons from chaos are profound.  Our contention is that business organisations and economics are essentially dissipative structures exhibiting both stability and instability at the same time. The spontaneous self-organisation of economic agents leads to unpredictable and emergent outcomes.  Clearly, the implications of all this are dramatic for they rule out any notion of useful long-term planning, in the sense of achieving specific, predictable outcomes.  Instead, they make the case for establishing structures and processes that promote maximum adaptability.

Economic systems, in order to be changeable, must operate far from equilibrium where it is impossible for anyone to predict reliably the long-term outcomes.  Consequently, no one can be in control of an economy.”  

Anticipatory Action Learning helps promote maximum adaptability and provides an effective challenge to the reliability and relevance of current planning methodologies.