February 21, 2007

1

From forecasting to Backcasting: Developing Shared Future Visions for

Sustainable Development

Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management

February 21, 2007 2

Why forecasting?

• Improves quality of debate?

• Suspect: technocracy?• Control dilemma

- the earlier a debate takes place, the more options there are for technological steering

entrenchment

February 21, 2007 3

Control dilemma with forecasting of impacts?Control dilemma for new technology

February 21, 2007 4

Forecasting possible?

• Fundamental problem: non-linearities• Problem of Induction• Historic empiric correlations are insufficient if there is

no clear causal relationsship

February 21, 2007 5

Who is the first to buy a telephone?

Some products become more attractive as others buy similar products: especially high-tech products: (computer, fax, phone, car, video)

EXAMPLE OF A NON LINEAR PHENOMENON

February 21, 2007 6

Foresight instead of forecasting, but how?

* Monitoring, trend watching* ’historic’ methods* ’expert’ methods* experiments* modelling

February 21, 2007 7

Monitoring

study of

- professional journals- patents/patent trends searches - meetings- Web searches- annual reports/media

February 21, 2007 8

‘historic’ methods

presupposition: historic parallels

historic analogydiffusion curvesS-curves

February 21, 2007 9

February 21, 2007 10

Extrapolations

• Based on hypotheses such as• Linear growth• S-curve• Envelope curve• Fisher-Prey, Gompertz diffusionmodels

February 21, 2007 11

February 21, 2007 12

Expert judgment

• If there are no reference points for extrapolation• To check a quantitative forecast

February 21, 2007 13

experts

• Are always biased• Positive in regard to technology in general IEEE onderzoek

• Positive in regard to the area of expertise (nuclear fusion, self selection)

The social structure of disciplines prohibits open communication regarding the future (interdependencies, prejudices, publication priorities)

February 21, 2007 14

Delphi method

Delphi:• survey among experts in several rounds• anonymous feed back of arguments & estimates• Revision of judgments• Consensus in 3-4 rounds

Criticism:• group bias remains• strategic behavior by mutual contact• Only for experts within a discipline

February 21, 2007 15

Experiences Delphi

• Used since 1959• Good results, • Not just forecasting: it is also intervention in a

discipline

February 21, 2007 16

Example: External propulsion of vehicles- 50 experts (global, 50% return, variatie)

• 14 technologies• 4 technologies were promising• Many experts changed their view during Delphi

process

February 21, 2007 17

Failed Forecasts

• Misjudgement of • Speed of Technological change: (1950s, flying cars)• expert assessment of technologies (eg the forecast

regarding superiority of synthetics, 1970)• citizens judgments (nuclear power)• Public policy (glass recycling)

February 21, 2007 18

Scenarios:

To paint the various possible and consistent futures in a complex situation:-not: emergency scenarios-but: credible stories that stimulate the creativeness of people in thinking of future threats and opportunities

- Robust options- cheap precautions

February 21, 2007 19

During stable times, the mental model of a successful decision maker and unfol-ding reality match... In times of rapid change and increased complexity, how-ever, the manager's mental model beco-mes a dangerously mixed bag: rich detail and understanding can coexist with dubi-ous assumptions .. and illusory projec-tions (Wack, 1985)

February 21, 2007 20

ingredients

- technology- economy- demographics- culture- regulation- the (global) environment- competitors actions

February 21, 2007 21

- in all scenario's, the corporation meets its goals. - in all scenario's, the corporation does not meet its goals. - in a surprise free scenario, the corporation meets its goal, but not in other scenarios.- in a surprise free scenario the corporation does not meet its goals, in alternative scenarios, it does.

Scenario Results: Stimulating creative discussion

February 21, 2007 22

Backcasting: Looking back from the future to design actions now

• Involve various stakeholders• Start with needs, not with technology• Analyze the need, what do stakeholders really want?• Build consensus

February 21, 2007 23

Future-oriëntation

Backcasting

Backcas

ting

2000 2050

ECOEFFICIENCY

Intermediate steps

Backcasting: from vision to action

TIME

February 21, 2007 24

Why Backcasting?

• Clear future visions have a strong guiding power: Man on the Moon,

• Defining and clarifying an attractive sustainable future

• It forces to specify norms and values

• Alternative for traditional forecasting

• Fit for ‘wicked problems’

• Experiences:• The Natural Step

• Netherlands: Sustainable Technology Development program

February 21, 2007 25

Backcasting: characteristics

• From future vision to action by design and analysis

• Organize the process carefully, the process is important,

• Facilitate learning of participants• Facilitate the social embedding of the results

February 21, 2007 26

Stakeholder Involvement

OPTIONS

EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT

SOCIETALORGANISATIONS

INDUSTRY

SCIENCEAND

TECHNOLOGY

February 21, 2007 27

Backcasting in 5 steps

Step 1 Strategic Problem orientation Analysis

Step 2 Prepare a vision of a desirable future Vision

Step 3 Back-casting What do we need to make this come true?

Step 4 Further elaboration, detailing

Step 5 Implementation, Policy implications, organizing embedding & follow-up

February 21, 2007 28

Toolkit for Backcasting:4 kinds of methods

• Participation and interaction

• workshops, visioning, creativity stimulation, brain storms

• Design- and scenario-methods: modeling, forecasting

• Analysis- and modeling-methods

• LCA, effect analysis, stakeholder analysis

• Management-methods for Process-, Project-, and Network management

February 21, 2007 29

Step 1

Strategic Problem orientation• Which needs to fulfill?• Trends, and possible changes that are relevant for this

need?• What is the problem, how is this problem perceived by

various groups?• What are the unsustainabilities and what are the causes?• Who are the stakeholders?• What are potentially directions to seek solutions?

Methods• Actor/Stakeholder analysis, socio-technical map• Interactive methods (interviews, workshops, etc)

February 21, 2007 30

Example: Soy Fodder - pigs – meat products

The Netherlands is importing large amounts of Soy fodder from Brazil, where it is often grown in areas that were cleared from tropical rainforest.

The soy fodder is used to feed pigs in a specific region. Pigs manure creates local ammonia contamination.

The pigs (or the pigs meat) is often transported to Italy. Some of the meat is afterwards returned as real ‘Parma Ham’.

The proteins that are actually consumed only account for a few percent of the plant proteins in soy fodder.

February 21, 2007 31

Strategic Problem Orientation

• What is the need?• What are the current unsustainabilities?• What will probably be stakeholders?

February 21, 2007 32

Step 2

Prepare a desirable future• Terms of Reference?• What socio/technical options are available? • Are the unsustainabilities solved?• Which technology is needed? • How does it affect culture and structure of society? • What are important trends, and events?• Could we make the future vision even more sustainable?

Methods• workshops • Creativity stimulation, designing• Consensus formation• Illustrations

February 21, 2007 33

Step 3

Back-casting What do we need?• Which changes are needed to make the future vision come

true (technologic, cultural, organization/structure)?• Who can implement the changes. How could the changes

be made attractive for these actors?• Could we define stepping stones?

Methods• Analysis and modeling

February 21, 2007 34

Step 4

Elaboration, analysis• A possible design of a socio-technical system• Effects of these systems for various stakeholders?• What are drivers, barriers? • What need to be in follow-up (policy, research,

development, publicity)?

Methods• Methods for Environmental Impact Analysis, consumer

studies, economic analysis of elements of system• Technology Assessment methods (checklist, cost/benefit,

etc)

February 21, 2007 35

Step 5

Agenda, embedding & follow-up• What should be done to guarantee successful further

activity after a backcasting project has been carried out?• How to embed specific projects and proposals?• Agreements on further process and conflict resolution.

Methods• Communication• Management

General• Project management, team building, communication• (process) evaluation