Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe foresight styles assessment (FSA) was regarded as an important empirical measure and dimension of a strategy level leader's dominant and back‐up styles of engaging with matters related to anticipating the future. The measure is also associated as a dimension of foresight as a leadership competence. This study seeks to determine the validity and reliability of the revised FSA as proposed by Gary.Design/methodology/approachA quantitative two‐step methodology was adopted as a pilot study preceding the main study in which a web‐based survey methodology was used. The sample consisted of 298 strategy level leaders. Data were analysed using advanced statistical analysis techniques including factor analysis and structural equation modelling.FindingsThe FSA's four factors; tester, adapter, framer and reactor, were confirmed but did not display uni‐dimensionality. Analytical results confirmed the validity and reliability of the measure, and the structural equation model illustrated good model fit. The reactor factor was determined to be a method factor and theoretical concerns could be raised regarding whether the reactor factor describes a foresight style. Future research of a summated three‐factor scale (excluding the reactor factor) is suggested and should include strategy‐level leaders, especially in more diverse populations, investigating further, the nomological validity and reliability of the scale.Research limitations/implicationsOwing to the purposive non‐probability sampling technique the sample results are not generalisable. However, the statistical results are rigorous and significant in terms of determining the validity and reliability of the measure. Further research of a summated three‐factor (tester, framer, adapter) scale amongst a more diverse population is suggested.Practical implicationsWhile some notable studies have been conducted, futures studies research generally lacks validated and reliable quantitative measures related to the foresight construct. As suggested by Inayatullah, the importance of understanding the value free observations of the empirically observable is required to meaningfully conduct deeper analysis of social issues. The findings of this research has implications in the study of foresight by providing empirical grounds for further exploratory research, and providing rigorous evidence supporting the use of the foresight styles assessment especially as a three‐factor summated scale. Use of the scale is not limited to foresight studies, indeed it can and has been applied to broader leadership cognition and strategic management studies yet to be reported.Social implicationsConsidering that foresight is regarded as an innate human characteristic and the need for social foresight may never have been higher, understanding a basis of measuring the construct may have significant implications in terms of further social science research and social foresight development.Originality/valueIn terms of measuring a broader construct of foresight competence, the rigorous validation of a measure to enable further interpretive, exploratory and critical research is important. To the author's knowledge, using structural equation modelling techniques in futures studies is very rare if at all. The study further contributes to the development of a rigorous measure that may facilitate significant foresight/futures studies/leadership and management future research.

Five academic programs in futures studies and strategic foresight collaborated over the 2012–2013 academic year for the purpose of investigating what they were teaching, and particularly what was common among the programs. Each of the five programs presented its curriculum to the other programs and answered their questions. Peter Bishop from the Houston program and Jim Dator from the Hawaii program synthesized the results with a special focus on a comparison of their two programs. Bishop presented the results at the biannual meeting of the World Futures Studies Federation in Bucharest, Romania, in July 2013.

Foresight is an area within Futures Studies that focuses on critical thinking concerning long term developments, whether within the public sector or in industry and management, and is something of a sub-section of complexity and network science. This book examines developments in foresight methodologies and relates in its greater part to the work done in the context of the COSTA22 network of the EU on Foresight Methodologies. Foresight is a professional practice that supports significant decisions, and as such it needs to be more assured of its claims to knowledge (methodology). Foresight is practiced across many domains and is not the preserve of specialized 'futurists', or indeed of foresight specialists. However, the disciplines of foresight are not well articulated or disseminated across domains, leading to re-inventions and practice that does not make best use of experience in other domains. The methodological development of foresight is an important task that aims at strengthening the pool of the tools available for application, thereby empowering the actors involved in foresight practice. Elaborating further on methodological issues, such as those presented in the present book, enables the actors involved in foresight to begin to critique current practice from this perspective and, thirdly, to begin to design foresight practice. The present trends towards methodological concerns indicates a move from 'given' expert-predicted futures to one in which futures are nurtured through a dialogue among "stakeholders." The book has four parts, each elaborating on a set of aspects of foresight methodologies. After an introductory section, Part II considers theorizing about foresight methodologies. Part III covers system content issues, and Part IV presents foresight tools and approaches

Strategische Vorausschau wird zunehmend in Politik und Wirtschaft nachgefragt. Der Beitrag liefert einen Überblick über die gängigsten Methoden dieser Form der Zukunftsanalyse. Die Autoren konzentrieren sich dabei auf methodische Anforderungen, die Kategorisierung unterschiedlicher methodischer Ansätze, die Bewertung von deren Stärken und Schwächen sowie die Identifikation relevanter Anwendungsfelder. Zudem widmen sie sich der Problematik der Ableitung von Handlungsempfehlungen und diskutieren die Sinnhaftigkeit strategischer Vorausschau zur Entscheidungsunterstützung

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to establish what foresight is, to review past usages and definitions of foresight and to synthesize them into one generic definition, in order to make the concept measurable.Design/methodology/approachA discussion on how to classify variables in the social sciences serves as the starting‐point. Next, a review of past definitions and usages of the concept foresight is followed by further analysis and then synthesizing of the generic definition. The generic definition is finally compared and contrasted with the related concepts of forecasting, strategic analysis, and intuition.FindingsForesight is defined as behavior along three dimensions: degree of analyzing present contingencies and degree of moving the analysis of present contingencies across time; degree of analyzing a desired future state or states a degree ahead in time with regard to contingencies under control; and degree of analyzing courses of action a degree ahead in time to arrive at the desired future state.Research limitations/implicationsThe article makes foresight quantitatively measurable, which in turn makes it possible to empirically measure the existence of foresight among managers and to test the relationship between foresight and organizational performance.Practical implicationsPractical foresight tools and programs, etc. can now be assessed and compared by both practitioners and researchers.Originality/valueIn identifying three fundamental behavioral dimensions of foresight, the article conceives and advances foresight as a distinct concept that can be related to several research areas, both on individual (e.g. managerial) and organizational levels.

A generic foresight process framework is outlined, based on prior independent work by Mintzberg, Horton and Slaughter. The framework was developed as part of work carried out by the author during the introduction of foresight into the formal strategic planning of a public‐sector university in Australia. The framework recognises several distinct phases, leading from the initial gathering of information, through to the production of outputs intended as input into the more familiar activities of strategy development and strategic planning. The framework is also useful as a diagnostic tool for examining how foresight work and strategy are undertaken, as well as a design aid for customised foresight projects and processes. Some observations and reflections are made on lessons learned from a two‐and‐a‐half year engagement as an organisationally‐based foresight practitioner.

"News--or foresight--about future economic fundamentals can create rational expectations equilibria with non-fundamental representations that pose substantial challenges to econometric efforts to recover the structural shocks to which economic agents react. Using tax policies as a leading example of foresight, simple theory makes transparent the economic behavior and information structures that generate non-fundamental equilibria. Econometric analyses that fail to model foresight will obtain biased estimates of output multipliers for taxes; biases are quantitatively important when two canonical theoretical models are taken as data generating processes. Both the nature of equilibria and the inferences about the effects of anticipated tax changes hinge critically on hypothesized tax information flows. Differential U.S. federal tax treatment of municipal and treasury bonds embeds news about future taxes in bond yield spreads. Including that measure of tax news in identified VARs produces substantially different inferences about the macroeconomic impacts of anticipated taxes"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

Information and communication technology (ICT) is being increasingly set up to improve the infrastructure of foresight. It will likely be used to implement more routine and continuous foresight processes in companies and organizations in the future. In this research, we look at the future implications of growing ICT application in foresight based on an extensive worldwide Delphi survey.

Purpose– This paper aims to argue that innovation system foresight (ISF) can significantly contribute to the third mission of universities by creating an active dialogue between universities, industry and society.Design/methodology/approach– This paper's approach is conceptual. The authors analyse the third mission and relevant literature on innovation systems and foresight to explain how and why foresight contributes to the third mission.Findings– The authors propose that foresight contributes to the third mission of universities, particularly to the research and development and innovation dimensions through the development of joint understanding of the agendas and future needs of stakeholders. In addition, foresight enables education to be designed to address identified needs.Research limitations/implications– The findings are both conceptual and exploratory in nature. Thus, the argument needs further examination through a broader study on foresight in the university–industry context and/or longitudinal research on the outcomes and impact of foresight in this context.Practical implications– The findings highlight the importance of understanding the systemic nature of innovation and its role in economic development. Universities must understand their role within the larger innovation system to fulfil the potential of economic development and by extension, their third mission.Originality/value– The paper outlines a novel approach of using ISF to promote university–industry partnerships and the growth of innovation systems. The paper also contributes to the discussion of the third mission by outlining that mission in practical terms.