Abstract
The aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of the different approaches for conducting a foresight process to be able to position the key competencies developed by the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight offered at Tecnológico de Monterrey. There are few graduate degree programs about futures studies worldwide. There is also consensus that futures studies is more a practice-based field than an established academic discipline; this stresses the importance of having a clear understanding of what contents and skills these programs are trying to teach.
Keywords
Four years ago, I was introduced to the world of Strategic Foresight and Futures Studies, first as a professor of qualitative techniques because they are commonly used in a variety of foresight methods. Then, I was asked to coordinate the master’s degree program. The Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight at the School of Govern-ment and Public Transformation at Tecnológico de Monterrey was the first program on Futures Studies offered in Mexico and Latin America. In the beginning, the Program was strongly influenced by the French School “la prospective” using Michel Godet’s Toolbox. We are now in the third revision of the program’s curriculum with the aim to broaden its scope and establish what Bishop (2016) states a common set of concepts, propositions, and methods taught in foresight programs. When we started the review process, the central question was, “what do we have to teach our students for them to be able to do foresight and/or futures studies?”
The aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of the different approaches for conducting a foresight process to be able to position the key competencies developed by the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight offered at Tecnológico de Monterrey. 1 There are few graduate degree programs about futures studies worldwide. There is also consensus that futures studies is more a practice-based field than an established academic discipline; this stresses the importance of having a clear understanding of what contents and skills these programs are trying to teach.
Background: Strategic Foresight or Futures Studies
As some have noted, one of the biggest weaknesses of futures studies is the lack of an agreed definition of what is meant and what methods are necessary to be taught to study the probable and possible futures 2 (Bell 2003; Bishop 2016). The first difficulty, especially for someone new in the field, as many of our students are, is being able to define the difference between futures studies and strategic foresight. There is no consensus among authors if they refer to different conceptualizations, different meanings, or different methods. 3 As Bishop (2016) notes, the different master’s degree programs that teach futures studies and/or strategic foresight are somehow similar, and advancing in this common ground is necessary to strengthen the futures studies field. Difficulty arises when is also necessary to allow the richness of diversity and multidisciplinarity given these are also the main strengths of futures studies and futures research.
There is a diverse list of methods for doing futures research; some of them developed within the futures field while others were appropriated from other disciplines because they deal with the future. Popper (2008) identifies thirty-three methods and classifies them by technique—quantitative, qualitative, or semiquantitative—or by type of knowledge source—creativity, expertise, interaction, or evidence. Also, the Millennium Project Futures Research Methodology v.3.0 covers thirty-nine methods with a standardized description and how to section for each method (Glenn and Gordon 2009). The diversity and nature of methods, for instance, qualitative or quantitative, make it difficult to select which one should be incorporated into the academic curriculum, given that it would be impossible to teach all of them. Also, due to their nature, some require more specific and specialized skills than others.
Bishop (2016) also identifies “generic framework processes” for conducting foresight. This is a common question of our new students: what do a foresight process should include? There are several methodological frameworks for conducting foresight and futures research that share commonalities and differences. Bishop identifies the Houston Foresight Framework, Alternative Futures by the Manoa School, Voros Generic Foresight Process Framework, and Inayatullah’s Six Pillars Framework. There are also other frameworks such as Godet’s Scenario Framework, widely used in Latin America (see Table 1). These frameworks share important characteristics, although some go beyond planning and acting to monitoring futures. Although between frameworks there are important differences, it is also possible to identify some commonalities across them.
Defining the issue: This phase includes identifying who is the audience and what is the objective of the project. Also, where the time horizon is defined, how far into the future we are going to study? Identify who is going to participate in the project, from within the organization and from the outside. Define the different roles and responsibilities of each team member (Bishop and Hines 2012; Chermack 2011; Godet 2001).
Scan the environment, understand the past, and identify the key variables: The objective is twofold, make a diagnostic of the organization of how it is in the present and understand the past, what has changed? When it changed? What are the organization’s main strengths and weaknesses? The second objective is to scan the external environment, and identify trends and possible weak signals; this can be done through different futures methods (Bishop and Hines 2012; Dator 2009; Godet 2001).
Deepening: Although this step is included only in Inayatullah (2008) and Voros (2003) foresight frameworks, and are based in the Critical Futures Studies School that state the need to go deeper, beyond the empirical data and systemic analysis. This will enable us to identify the “cultural worldviews” to understand the “external world.” If we do not do this, we are at risk of not being able to visualize alternative futures (Slaughter 2002).
Create alternative futures: The objective is to create images of alternative futures for the organization making sense of the inputs from the scanning phase. There are multiple methods to create these futures visions or scenarios (Amer et al. 2013; Bishop et al. 2007). According to Amer et al. (2013), these different methodologies belong to the intuitive logics school, the probabilistic modified trends methodology, or the French School for developing scenarios.
Visioning: After we identify the alternative futures, the organization can identify what its preferred vision or future. This is the normative scenario. The intuitive logics school of scenario planning proposes the use of scenarios for wind-tunneling different strategies of the organization to be prepared to whichever futures occur. The French School rejects determinism and chance (Godet 2001, 8), and states that “the future is the justification for our present actions” so we have the power to influence the future through our actions.
Planning: Defining the strategies and actions to work toward the vision or those actions that position the organization in advantageous situation, no matter what scenario unfolds.
Acting: Implementing the plan and the strategies (Bishop and Hines 2012). For the French School, action is deciding and prioritizing the strategic choices (Godet 2001).
Monitoring: Ideally, the foresight process should be a continuous activity within the organization; this would enable them to assess the scenarios, identify early warnings, and adapt the strategy.
Frameworks for Conducting a Foresight Project.
Source. Bell (2003), Bishop and Hines (2012), Dator (2009), Godet (2001), Inayatullah (2008), and Voros (2003).
Some of the methodological frameworks use specific methods; others are more flexible in relation of what tools and methods to use in each phase. Popper (2008, 75) states, “the methodological framework used in a foresight project should be tailored to meet the specific objectives of the project and the resources and capabilities that are available.” However, it is increasingly important to define our references when developing a foresight or futures project.
The Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight at Tecnológico de Monterrey
Until 2016, the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight has enrolled 253 students of diverse background mostly Mexicans and also some from the Latin American region especially from Ecuador and Peru. The students come from different academic disciplines such as international relations, economics, industrial engineering, and administration, and more than thirty different undergraduate degree programs ranging from biotechnology, criminology, and nutrition (see Table 2). This enriches the in-classroom discussion and promotes interdisciplinarity.
Students’ Background.
Data from April 2016.
The Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight was first offered at Tecnológico de Monterrey in the year 2000. The Program started in the undergraduate Department of International Relations and sought to offer the students an international perspective to analyze the geopolitical forces faced by globalization. The master’s degree program was a semester-based program open to new cohorts of students each semester. The program mostly received students who finished their studies of international relations and wanted to continue studying a master’s degree. In 2003, Tecnológico de Monterrey University System created the School of Govern-ment and Public Transformation (formerly named Graduate School of Public Administration and Public Policy) as an effort to offer graduate programs dealing with the public sphere. The Graduate School opened offering six graduate programs that were previously scattered in several departments of the University; one of them was the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight. This development led to a revision of the master’s degree program in 2004.
The new program curricula included an introductory course on futures studies positioning the master’s degree for the first time within the field and other courses related to the public domain because the orientation of the School was Public Policy and Public Administration. Other courses that were included were as follows: Mexico facing world megatrends, and Leadership and ethics in the exercise of public service; this course was shared with the other Master’s Degree Programs offered in the School. Another important change in the program curricula was the inclusion of elective courses where the student could choose three courses related to their specific interest. Some of the electives were International Commerce, Development Policy Analysis, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other Regional Agreements, and International Trade, among others.
In 2008, the program was accredited by the Registry of Quality Graduate Programs of the National Council of Science and Technology 4 and gained national visibility. In 2009, the program went again under a process of revision and the course of civil society, and government was replaced by a course of qualitative research methods (see Table 3). The reason for the change was that many of the methods and tools of futures studies use qualitative techniques like interviews, focus groups, and documental analysis. Also, the aim of the course was helping the students to develop a research project because, in their last semester, students do a thesis to be able to graduate; this can be a research or an internship project, but many students started their last semester without an idea of what to do. Other two courses were also reoriented: Introduction to Futures Studies changed to Introduction to Strategic Prospective; this shows the strong orientation of the program to the French School, and the course of Megatrends expanded its focus to a global perspective.
Program Curricula.
Note. MPE = Maestría en Prospectiva Estratégica [Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight].
Source. Tecnológico de Monterrey.
In 2015, the Graduate School of Government and Public Transformation sent an online survey to its graduates and ask them their job position and a description of their work activities. Eighty-six graduates of the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight answered the survey. The results showed that forty-two worked in the private sector in areas related to strategic planning where they tried to introduce foresight activities, twenty-five worked in academia teaching foresight courses in undergraduate level or in academic administration functions, eight worked in the public sector and were mainly involved in planning and design of public policies in subnational governments, and one worked in a civil society organization but did not provide a description of activities. Finally, ten students reported doing foresight-consulting services.
The program’s impact can also be assessed by the increase of awareness of the need of foresight analysis for the public and private sectors. The program periodically receives requests of employers asking for graduates of the master’s degree program to fill newly created job posts such as manager on strategic foresight or to engage in planning areas in public and private sectors. International students are also engaged in foresight activities once they go back to their home countries; since 2015, the program received students from Peru who received a full scholarship from their government because they recently passed a law that requires that every public policy goes through a foresight process. When they go back to their home country, they engage in foresight activities for their government or other private entities. Other graduates are also involved with international organizations such as Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) of the United Nations. The program regularly receives request for interns for their foresight capabilities.
Finally, given the conditions of turbulence, uncertainty, novelty, and ambiguity (TUNA; Emery and Trist as cited in Ramírez and Wilkinson 2016), there has been an increase in awareness and importance on foresight and futures studies. The competencies developed in our graduate’s students have proved to be useful for either private or public organizations, which has increased the visibility and impact of the master’s degree program.
The Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight: Review Process, 2015–2017
The review process of the master’s degree program started in 2015 and included two focus groups with alumni and current students and an online survey for the program faculty and alumni of the program (see Table 4). Experienced futurists were also invited to participate in the review of the curriculum, and finally a benchmark of other Graduate Foresight Programs was also done to identify the program orientation, possible common courses, and concepts and methods taught.
Activities of the Review Process.
The findings of the review process were useful for developing the new version of the program curricula. A recurrent problem was that given the diverse background of the students, some of them were struggling with quantitative courses because they lack the necessary skills. This showed the necessity of introducing leveling courses for those who came from undergraduate programs less quantitatively based. The experienced futurists identified the necessity of strengthening the theory behind futures studies. The courses as they have been offered were strongly based on the French School of la prospective, and there was a need to broaden the scope to include different perspectives such as foresight, scenario planning, experiential futures based on the Manoa School (Dator 2009), and Critical Futures Studies (Inayatullah 2004; Slaughter 1998, 2002).
One of the reviewers stated that the program lacked a course specifically on Social Change Theory that explained to students early in the program “how and why society Changes or Does Not Change.” 5 The updated version of the program took this recommendation and introduced a course of History of Social Change with the aim “to understand and analyze what the main triggers of social change have been throughout history” (Monterrey Tech University System 2017). Taking into account what Fuller and Loogma (2009) state that foresight methodology is both a “social construction, and a mechanism for social construction” the focus of the program is to teach students that foresight is a process for the construction of meaning to take action in the present. The program also stresses that futures studies does not aim to predict the future 6 although, some things can be forecasted, there is always the possibility of chance and creation of futures (Meadows 1999).
The key competencies that the master’s degree aims to develop are as follows (see Table 5): (1) systemic analysis defined as understanding and evaluating complex problems with a holistic perspective—recommendations will result from the consideration of all the dimensions of the problem, through a systems approach; (2) capacity to anticipate change and complex problems defined as the ability to apply analytical tools that enable them to identify weak signals and situations that could endanger the organization; (3) futures vision, defined as the ability to combine information from different sources and of different nature to develop visions of plausible and possible futures through a foresight process; and (4) capacity to find novel solutions to complex problems defined as the ability to combine quantitative and qualitative information to have a holistic vision to understand the phenomena or organization under study to identify robust strategies. These competencies are assessed along different courses of the master’s degree program through exams, real-case projects, and in-class activities. Finally, to graduate from the program, the students have to do a research thesis or an internship for a real client where they can demonstrate the use of these competencies.
Key Competencies that the Master’s Degree Program Aims to Develop.
The Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight is composed by fourteen courses: eight core courses, four elective courses, and two project-based courses. The program aims to provide a conceptual and theoretical framework of foresight and futures studies and the analytical tools for doing a foresight process. In this sense, the program has also strengthened the quantitative-based analytical tools to take advantage of data analytics and data mining, introducing students to more sophisticated futures methods such as Robust Decision Making developed by the Rand Organization. The program also stresses the importance of qualitative analytical tools as the futures cannot be studied empirically because it has not happened, so what we study are the visions and images we have of the possible futures, as Robert Brumbaugh states, “There are no future facts, but there are no past possibilities” (as cited in Dator 2002, 6).
The master’s degree program aims to teach students the fundamentals of futures studies. In this way, the program enhances students’ abilities to design a foresight process through the selection of a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify possible futures. The last step is to choose a preferable future and the action plan through strategic planning. The course Leadership and Ethics is aligned with what Dator (2002) and Bell (2003) argue since the future is the study of the possible and preferable futures; ethical considerations are central to futures studies (see Table 6). 7 The program also has four elective courses the students can choose according to their professional and academic interests. 8 Finally, the integration projects can be a research or a real-case project with a client where the student must apply all what he has learned in the master’s degree program.
Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight, 2017.
Source. Tecnológico de Monterrey (www.itesm.mx).
Although Critical Futures Studies and the Alternative Futures School from the University of Manoa stress the importance of the going beyond data and systemic causes for really visualizing alternative futures, we commonly face that decision makers and stakeholders have resistance to try and adopt this type of framework, at least at the beginning. Many are still interested in what Inayatullah (2004, 543) identifies in his Causal Layered Analysis Pyramid as the Litany and System level. The program faculty considered teaching these are also necessary to understand the past and the present of the topic under study. The program aims that after creating these competencies, our students go beyond these two first levels and began analyzing deeper structures: the discourses and the metaphors. Ideally a foresight process would not be complete until we are able to go to a deeper level. This view is achieved through the courses of Prospective Methods, History of Social Change, and some of the elective courses. One of the program differentiation characteristics is that it tries to have a balance between the quantitative analysis of futures studies for understanding the past and identifying the trends and the forces pushing from the past to the future, but then it teaches the students what futurists argue that there is not one future but there are multiple futures, and that it is the exception rather than the rule that the future is the continuation of the past.
Conclusion
The aim of this article is to show the key characteristics of the Master’s Degree in Strategic Foresight offered at Tecnológico de Monterrey. The program was the first Master’s Degree Program on Latin America in the field of Futures Studies. At first, it started as program oriented to study geopolitics and international relations since it started in the Department of International Relations. Later on, it became oriented to futures studies and strategic foresight. Latin America has been historically oriented to the French School of Futures Studies, and the program was also oriented to this framework of analysis. In the last five years, the program has been reoriented to be able to include other perspectives and school of thought of futures studies with the aim of giving the students a more inclusive perspective of the futures field. The diverse background of our students enriches the in-class discussion and promotes one of the main strengths of the field, a multidisciplinary analysis with diverse groups and different perspectives. The program has steadily grown in student numbers and is also positioned in Latin America, but one of its weaknesses has been its lack of involvement to the much wider community of futures studies at an international level.
Footnotes
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.