10 trends in strategic foresight for defense and security
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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