Emerging Issues Analysis: Because of Graham Molitor

What Is EIA?

EIA is intended to identify things in their earliest emergence that, depending on if and how they develop, might prove beneficial or harmful to the preferred futures of the persons or institutions doing or requesting the analysis. Decision-makers overwhelmingly deal with current problem/opportunities (as Robert Theobald dualistically labeled them). Most futures forecasting is based on trends—the identification of empirically, quantitatively observable developments over time. EIA is a way to identify things that might (1) interrupt existing trends and current processes, and/or (2) become new trends themselves that might eventually become problem/opportunities. The intention of identifying both trends and emerging issues is to enable decision-makers to deal with them before they become fully mature problem/opportunities. Emerging issues are potential problem/opportunities in their earliest stage of development. Trends are potential problem/opportunities that have fully emerged, and might develop into mature problem/opportunities.

Examples of emerging issues are typically displayed as follows: (1) if it is relevant and reasonable to do so, by giving a date by which the issue will have significant social, environmental, and/or physical impact, and then (2) by titling the issue in a straightforward declarative statement with no immediate explanation or justification. The intention is to provoke disbelief, puzzlement, perhaps shock, even disgust—not immediate acceptance and agreement. It is only after an emerging issue has been so stated, and then some evidence for it has been given, that (3) the stated impact is explained via one or more scenarios that show possible developments of the issue from its first emergence to its significant impact.

EIA is based on the empirically validated fact that every problem/opportunity of the present once did not exist. Every problem/opportunity went through an “S” curve of emergence, growth, maturity, and decline/death. Currently, most decision-makers deal almost exclusively with mature problem/opportunities. Most futurists try to help decision-makers identify what will become problem/opportunities before they do so, so that decision-makers can prepare for them before they are fully mature. Even though “there are no future facts,” because so many decision-makers are unfortunately wedded to the notion of “evidence-based futures,” most futurists focus on identifying “trends” that have some clear, empirical, historical evidence. We also focus on “emerging issues,” attempting to identify what might become a problem/opportunity in its earliest possible stage of emergence, even though the empirical data for their existence are very scanty. But the evidence is there. We do not “make up” emerging issues.

As Molitor makes very clear, the movement from an emerging issue to a problem/opportunity follows an “S” curve of growth. There is an initial period of emergence and slow initial growth, followed by a period of rapid growth as a trend, finally maturing in a plateau as a problem/opportunity, then perhaps dying out entirely, or declining, only to begin the cycle at some point in the future once again as a series of overlapping “S” curves. Molitor identifies in considerable detail the different observers, institutions, processes, sources, and the like that exist in relation to each issue from earliest emergence, through clear trend, to mature problem/opportunity, to decline and/or death.

Please note that the date given in the title of an emerging issue statement is not the date when it is first identified. Nor is it the date when the issue will begin to move up the “S” curve of social impact. Rather, it is the date when the issue may become a full-blown problem/opportunity.

By definition, emerging issues are not things that are expected to mature in the immediate future. Nonetheless, the rate of growth varies with different issues and circumstances. Some might move very quickly through for emerging issues to problem/opportunity, while others may take years or longer. Any issue that will mature within the next few years probably is actually either a trend (i.e., some substantial empirical and historical evidence of the issue already exists that has not been noticed before) or an event (i.e., it is a trend that was not identified clearly enough beforehand and so is viewed as a “surprise” or a “wild card” when it is noticed. That is to say, a “wild card,” suddenly appearing, is a sign of inattentive futures research).

Emerging issues are on the far left tail of the “S” curve of growth, barely visible, and just beginning to pop into view. Indeed, almost no one sees them. Their very existence, much less their future trajectory, is quite uncertain. This is why they should be so important to decision-makers: it is the aim of futurists to identify what may become problem/opportunities even before they become trends, while they are uncertain, problematic, but potentially malleable emerging issues.

A key concept of futures studies, as we have come to understand it over almost half a century’s work in the field, is that “The Future” cannot be “predicted,” that “Alternative Futures” can be “forecasted,” and that “Preferred Futures” can be envisioned, designed, and achieved on a continually evolving basis. Moreover, it is essential that futures scanning, forecasting, and envisioning be done on a routine, daily basis—it should be some agency’s job solely to engage in futures research and to integrate it into the decision-making processes of the organization. Futures scanning should not be an exotic exception to daily decision-making and occasional planning.

As the future cannot be predicted (and it is folly to try) while alternative futures can and should be forecasted and explored, emerging issues are always related to one or more of the four generic alternative futures that (based on years of extensive research) we label “Grow,” “Collapse,” “Discipline,” or “Transform” (Dator 2009). Thus, what makes sense as an emerging issue for one alternative future may be senseless in another. Each issue is derived from and contributes to one or two of the four generic images of the future, seldom to all four. Although all statements are grounded in empirical and/or logically derived evidence in the present, they cannot all be true as stated. Their actual future condition depends in part on what, if anything, is done to address them after they are identified.

How Are Emerging Issues Identified?

Both trends and emerging issues are initially identified by a process called “scanning” (sometimes, “environmental scanning”). By definition, trends are things and processes that have fully “emerged” into view and concern, though are still in the process of development toward becoming problem/opportunities. There is some substantial and often considerable empirical data backing up trends. What is uncertain is their further evolution.

Emerging issues, in contrast, are barely visible, not well-known, and have very little empirical evidence—certainly not enough to yet be classified as a trend.

Although the process of identifying both trends and emerging issues is similar, there are very important differences. Consider four different ways to “read” or to search an environment for data.

We all know how to read a textbook so as to “psych out” the teacher and decide what among all the data in the text “will be on the test.” Learning to do this separates good from bad students very early on.

Compare this with reading a novel for pleasure. It is a completely different process in which one simply gets out of the written material whatever one wishes, just for the fun of it. You can read rapidly, stopping only to pore over the good stuff, or savor every word and phrase. It is up to you: there is no “test” at the end.

Then there is the kind of reading one does for research—collecting a huge number of books, journals, websites, and other sources of data while looking only for those bits in each of them that are of relevance to the research project, ignoring all the rest. The ability to do “original research” based on the work of others (while avoiding plagiarism) is one of the things that distinguishes a successful scholar from a merely good student.

Finally, there is scanning for emerging issues. Generally speaking, people who are good at the first three forms of reading and observing are not good at scanning. Scanning is looking for novelties—new ideas or developments that have not been mentioned before—and patterns—ideas or developments that are mentioned widely across disciplines, cultures, and languages. To identify novelties requires that the scanner have a great deal of knowledge of what is already known and what is not. That takes discipline and extensive training. And yet scanning for patterns also necessitates the ability to “put your mind in neutral” and not focus too much on what is before you—to just let patterns and webs of connections emerge almost unconsciously in your mind. Most people find it difficult to do both, and so good scanners are rare, and often take time to develop if they cannot do it naturally.

At the “Manoa School of Futures Studies” as we are informally known in the futures field (Jones 1992), we spend a lot of time teaching students to scan by following the Molitor model, while doing scanning ourselves either specifically for clients, or to build a base of “scanning hits” for our own purposes. Successful scanning takes time, effort, and experience. Moreover, the sources for good scans differ from those for most research. As Graham Molitor pointed out in his original 1977 article, and subsequently, there are places to look for problem/opportunities that differ from where trends can be found, that also differ from emerging issues.

Problem/opportunities are discussed in the daily mass media, popular magazines, TV shows, popular websites and blogs, in sermons, editorials, casual conversations on Twitter, Facebook, and the like. There are many formal institutions that deal with them. Problem/opportunities have professional, full-time, elected, or appointed “decision-makers” with large staffs and big budgets dealing with them, taking advantage of them, trying to prevent and extinguish them as appropriate. “Everyone” knows about and talks about problem/opportunities.

Most trends, in contrast, are not usually widely known by the public. They are not the concern of most decision-makers (though one of the tasks of futurists is to make them so). Some experts are tracking them, and there is historical empirical data that can then be extrapolated, by various techniques, into the futures. Information about them is found in specialized journals, databases, websites, think tanks, laboratories, and special interest groups. Subject-matter experts are a good source for trends in their area of expertise (only).

Emerging issues, initially, are hardly known, or noticeable, at all. Only one or two (probably marginal) people may have heard of them, or speak of them. Finding emerging issues in their earliest emergence is very, very difficult. It is necessary to look in and/or talk with cutting-edge, marginal, unpopular, subversive, dangerous, illegal places and people. Some graduate students may be working on them, but most established professors and experts are unaware of them. When experts are made aware of an emerging issue, they typically laugh, express horror or disbelief, and dismiss it as ridiculous. Some emerging issues will turn out to be ridiculous, but others become extremely important. If they had been taken seriously when they first were identified, decision-makers might have taken advantage of them, or sought to suppress them, in their initial stages when they were undeveloped, rather than having to deal with them when they are fully developed, mature, and strong. Emerging issues and expert negative reaction to them is the basis of “Dator’s Second Law of the Futures” which states that “in a situation of rapid social and environmental change, any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous,” provoking ridicule and initial disbelief. Indeed, the test of a “good” emerging issue is if most people, including experts, dismiss and ridicule it (and the person who identifies it), or not. If they accept it and nod in agreement, it is by definition not an emerging issue but either a trend or even a problem/opportunity.

Once a list of emerging issues has been collected by a group of scanners, it is then typical that they be discussed by the scanners who identified them and by other fellow futurists. If the scans have been done at the request of a client, then a list of hits, expressed in the typical way by date of maturity and a provocative title, are usually turned over to a group of people within the client’s organization (which may or may not also include futurists) who discuss the issues among themselves, eventually asking that a certain number of hits be fleshed out by the scanning group via scenarios of development. The client then engages in an internal process of examining the developed scenarios to decide which should be incorporated into the planning process of the organization for further tracking, or which should be dealt with immediately. Personnel, money, and time are then allotted to these tasks, with a deadline set for their further evaluation.

Driving Forces, Trends, Emerging Issues, Alternative Futures, and Preferred Futures

Futures research is used for different purposes by different organizations. Typically, we are asked to help work with an organization that is in the early stages of developing a new strategic plan or modifying an existing one. Since the Second World War, it has become commonplace for organizations to develop strategic plans which then are operationalized so as to enable decision-makers to make their day-to-day decisions on the basis of the plan.

Unfortunately, most plans are not made on the basis of a prior survey of alternative futures. Most plans address current or perennial problems and/or take advantage of current opportunities. Many plans also focus on integrating parts of an organization that have been operating relatively independent of each other. To the extent there is a futures-orientation, it is typical that only a few variables—such as population, economic conditions, perhaps new technologies—are identified and their future values projected into the future on some kind of a “continued growth” assumption, and used as the basis for planning.

Unfortunately, without a prior futures exercise, these plans are often useless as soon as they are finished. The world goes off in a direction the plan did not anticipate. New problems and opportunities arise that were totally unforeseen. People who insist on following the plan anyway are resisted by those who say the plan must be rejected so the members of the organization can react “realistically.” And so the entire activity of planning falls into disrepute and people forced to plan yet again, or follow a dysfunctional plan, grow weary and cynical.

There are potential solutions to this condition, but discussing them is beyond the scope of this brief comment. One example can be found in (Bengston 2016).

Years of experience, better and consistent funding, proven usefulness, and rapidly improving intelligent technology have changed and are continuing to change the way scanning is done well beyond what was possible in Molitor’s day and for some decades after. For example, the government of Singapore is one of the first and most consistently futures oriented in the world. After fifteen years of experience with various futures methods, the government developed a sophisticated computer-based scanning process called RAHS (Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning) between 2004 and 2007. As part of the National Security Coordinating Structure, it continues to provide extensive information about “Black Swans and Black Elephants” to various agencies in the public sector (http://www.nscs.gov.sg/public/content.aspx?sid=191). Shaping Tomorrow is a U.K.-based private organization that since 2002 has used “AI and strategic systems thinking to discover emerging change as it happens and respond in time” (https://www.shapingtomorrow.com/). The EU Science Hub of the European Commission sponsors several “competency hubs” that use and develop tools for scanning and foresight, including one on Composite Indicators and another on Text Mining and Analysis (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/knowledge). There are many more. A special issue of WFR on Governmental Foresight later in 2018 will discuss a wider array.

Nonetheless, it is doubtful if we would have made horizon scanning one of the foundational methods for all of our futures work without the illuminating breakthrough work by Graham Molitor. The futures, and the futures field, owes him their undying gratitude for this alone, as well as for all the other services he provided to so many of us.