Abstract
In an increasingly complex world where change is accelerating at an exponential pace, leaders and organisations are mostly still operating at a linear pace. The approaching Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has further revealed the disparity between external change and the preparedness of leaders to act in an appropriate manner to maintain business objectives today, whilst also creating value for tomorrow in the face of an unknown and changing future.
As more “non-linearities” become common place, the use of historic data and achievements are no longer sufficient for future planning. This forward extrapolation of the past assumes a similar trajectory moving forward, with little or no differences in the forthcoming external environment. This is not the case; rather, the world today is fraught with unknown unknowns, rendering the traditional approach inefficient, and at times, irrelevant. Contrast this with an infinite set of potential futures and an immediate need arises to create a framework to guide thinking about the future.
Within the field of futures thinking, an approach known as backcasting, where you imagine a multi-potential future from a forward point in time and work backwards, and considering possible discontinuities is one approach. This methodology is not just a matter of framing, but philosophically in the context of discovery and not justification.
This research combines a mixed method approach by addressing the key research exploring the extent that backcasting can be applied for future fitness. The three main findings should be read on a continuum as they gradually build upon theories and frameworks presented providing a practical and experience-based output that can be used to help companies understanding an approach to allow them to be more future fit.
The first finding helps orientate companies by understanding which kind of futures thinking tools to use depending on the kind of future which they may be facing. By segmenting into an (un)known (un)known future, leaders will be better placed to plan by utilizing the right tools and bring an awareness to the shortcomings they face based off the principles of Johari’s window. This new theoretical framework, known as Wing’s Theoretical Futures (WTF) combines Rumsfeld’s unknown unknown’s views with the aforementioned Johari’s window and merges established future’s tools framing with insights from other academic areas to create a novel new approach to thinking about and classifying futures. Furthermore, WTF explores the typical flow of awareness to help orientate companies on their discovery of indeterministic futures and postulates the link between futures thinking, traditional business approaches and design thinking.
Page 5 of 226
The second main finding is based off a qualitative interview with thirteen leaders that have used a backcasting approach, irrespective of the actual methodology. Through a process of codification and thematic analysis, saturation is achieved by a layperson’s lens and ensuring no new insights emerge. This results in 24 attributes across 3 key areas: Leadership, Organisation and Landscape (LOL) that companies can focus on to create more resilient future strategies as indicated by a singular metric based off the LOL elements to understand their Future Fitness Score (FFS). This allows organisations to have a singular metric to gauge their preparedness to be future fit.
The third finding builds upon the previous two and uses a qualitative approach across 58 respondees to deepen the understanding of the 24 attributes that emerged using a four-point Likert scale, to prioritise the top four attributes across each of the LOL elements. The LOL attributes are then prioritized relative to each other over time to determine the priority of each with insights emerging on the shifting priority of leadership, organisation, and landscape, with the results suggesting one of the reasons why companies fail to plan for the future.
Research is then extended into the concept of the duality of leadership and the imperative for leaders to recognize the dual purpose of delivering business results today AND creating value for tomorrow. The relative weightings for LOL are then adapted across two spectrums: as a company develops from a small to micro to medium, and finally, to a large company and across three time periods: the present, 5 years into the future and 10 years into the future. A framework to determine where investments into resources should be utilized is provided in a MLIF (Maximise, Lead, Invest, Forego) matrix by prioritizing current versus future market share allowing for organisations to create a common understanding of the various initiatives and potential payback.
These various frameworks are then used for three companies: X, Y Z and an analysis is provided on how to use the 24 attributes and what companies may understand through the actual, practical application of this research. A discussion follows for each that demonstrates how the data can reveal areas for improvement, either factually or as a perception. Furthermore, intangible or difficult tacit knowledge and information can hence be quantified for further discussion.
The main findings of this research is finally subject to a Delphi study to validate and determine applicability. These are further segmented into 38 areas, with an additional 39th area added after the first round of the Delphi study. Of the 39, only two did not meet the minimum acceptable threshold of consensus 75% demonstrating the vast majority of views that the research findings are substantial and relevant in the areas of futures thinking.
Page 6 of 226
A discussion and critical analysis follows examining each subdivision of this research’s (sub)question and provides insights for each question. A discussion on these areas suggest further research where these findings may have limits and recommendation for future application and where research can extend upon those derived in this study.