10 Trends in Strategic Foresight for Defense and Security
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
7 likes•3,061 views
1) The document discusses 10 trends in strategic foresight for defense and security planning. 2) It notes a shift towards more serious strategic analysis that balances short, medium, and long term planning horizons. 3) Foresight is moving towards a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, and using a more diverse set of foresight tools and methods. 4) There is a push to better link foresight to action, balance external and internal perspectives, and develop new foresight products beyond traditional planning documents.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to 10 Trends in Strategic Foresight for Defense and Security
Similar to 10 Trends in Strategic Foresight for Defense and Security (19)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (15)
10 Trends in Strategic Foresight for Defense and Security
- 1. 10 TRENDS IN STRATEGIC FORESIGHT FOR DEFENCE AND SECURITY STEPHAN DE SPIEGELEIRE HCSS SENIOR SCIENTIST STOCKHOLM, NOVEMBER 28, 2012
- 2. Strategy is about „the big picture‟ ? ??
- 3. „Armed Force‟ as a Reflection of the Age Nomadic (Hunter/gatherer) Agrarian society Industrial society Age „Arms‟ Bare Hands+ Cold Hot Energy Human Mechanical Thermal Unit Clan Settlement City Nation-State Post-industrial society: Information and knowledge age Age Arms ? Energy ? Unit ? [..., networks, cities, societies, individuals,…]
- 4. STRONG in the 21st Century: STRategic Orientation and Navigation Guidance Strategic Orientation Strategic Navigation 1 Performance indicators External (design/collect) Analysis Strategic portfolio analysis 2 Strategic Foresight boundary Strategic Act CD&E direction conditions Capa- Eco- Policy bility system options options options Internal Analysis Decide 1 – Strategic learning Strategic Risk Assessment 2 – Strategic feedback loop Value for Money Analysis
- 5. Trend 1 – (A bit) more „serious‟ strategic analysis … but differentially so Strategic Orientation Strategic Navigation 1 Performance indicators External (design/collect) Analysis Strategic portfolio analysis 2 Strategic Foresight boundary Strategic Act CD&E direction conditions Capa- Eco- Policy bility system options options options Internal Analysis Decide 1 – Strategic learning Strategic Risk Assessment 2 – Strategic feedback loop Value for Money Analysis
- 6. Trend 1 – (A bit) more „serious‟ strategic analysis Personal and notional drawings! Strategic Strategic Strategic Operational Operational Tactical Tactical US Europe Europe (Best case) (Typical case)
- 7. Foresight and Defence Planning A Short History I n Fore- Point Parameterized Foresight s Risk/Uncertainty Meta-Foresight casting Scenarios scenarios i g h t Teleological Multi-scenario Robust „FAR‟ First planning Planning (1-on-1) planning planning principles from “plan and pray” to “sense and respond”
- 8. FORESIGHT FOR DEFENCE: 10 TRENDS
- 9. 10 trends 1. Foresight for defense (still?) going strong 2. More balance between time horizons 3. Towards whole-of-government/society 4. Diversification of types of foresight 5. Diversification of foresight tools/methods 6. From foresight 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 7. Towards better actioning of foresight 8. More balance between outside-in/inside-out 9. Towards new foresight products
- 10. Trend 1 – Interest in foresight (still?) growing
- 11. Trend 2 – Better Balance between Planning Horizons: Away from Presentism? Personal and notional estimates !!! P High L A N N I N Medium G Defence Planning- E F Horizons: F • current O Low • medium-term R • long-term T 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s YEAR
- 12. Trend 3 – Towards whole-of-government (slowly) Integrated security Whole-of- foresight Society Internal security Whole-of- Government Stovepiped Whole-of- Whole-of- Government Society External security
- 13. Planning for National Security – The Dutch Model (2007) Foresight Risk assessment Capabilities planning Process 1. Government-wide analysis 2. Strategic planning 3. Follow-up Policy A. Strategic B. Horizon- Required Current foresight scanning capabilies capabiliities C. National Planning Risk risk- assumpt prioritization Measures assessment ions B. Thematic in-depth foresight Capabilities gap Legislation Report Report Report National - Work Product strategic themes and Threat Risk programme Capability foresight scenarios picture Assessment requirements tasks and Cabinet Cabinet capabilities Cabinet decides Decision- decides on selects on capabilities themes for priorities on to be making thematic basis of strengthened in-depth national risk through normal analyses assessment budget system
- 14. Government-Wide National Risk Assessment Methodology
- 15. 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 A No 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
- 16. Impact assessment Territorial Human Ecological Pol-Soc stability Economic
- 17. Government-Wide National Risk Assessment – Assessing Impact
- 18. Government-Wide National Risk Assessment – 2008 Risk diagram
- 19. Trend 4 – Diversification of types of foresight Strategic security After Paul Davis planning (Deep(ening?)) Risk Uncertainty planning Type of Operational Contingency planning planning Risk planning Uncertainty planning Planning Foresight Broader foresight No-surprises future Point-scenarios toolbox ‘The Black Swan’ Pinciple Optimization Robustness FRANKness First principles
- 20. Trend 5 - Diversification of foresight methods
- 21. HCSS „flares‟: 8 different angles … …along (at least) three dimensions Level of Abstraction High Very abstract Low Very concrete Long Short Timehorizon Quantitative Qualitative Research method
- 22. „Events‟ in scenario framework
- 23. Online expertforum • What do you see as the major risks to national and international stability and security in the Risks coming 5-15 years? • International • National Relevance • Criteria • Driving forces • Actors Elaboration • Regions
- 25. TRADITIONAL ARMS RACE - CONCEPTUAL VIEW Sensitivity of opposing arms production B Bias in estimating Time to perceive opposing arms B arms opposing arms B + + + Estimated - opposing arms A + + Arms B Desired arms A + - + + + New arms under Estimated Estimated New arms under development A domestic arms A domestic arms B development B + + + + - Arms A Desired arms B + Estimated opposing arms B - + + Time to perceive arms Bias in estimating opposing arms A opposing arms A Sensitivity of opposing arms production A
- 26. Trend 6 – Towards Foresight 3.0 Foresight 1.0 Foresight 2.0 Foresight 3.0 Connecting people / Prima Donna Networks of (remarkable) people Connecting visions
- 27. Meta-fore – Etymology and Meaning Meta- fore Μετα-φορά Fore-sight A (metaphora) n G c r i e fore sight e e μεταφέρω (metapherō) n k “„I transfer, apply‟” ME, probably t translation of Latin „providentia‟ μετά (meta), φέρω (pherō), “above, beyond‟” “„I bear, carry‟” Meta-analysis of existing foresight exercises Without pre-conceived (ideological, methodological, cultural,…) notions (Attempt to) carry the field of foresight beyond its current status
- 28. Metafore C6+2 protocol “Command and Control‟ Conceptualize Collect Code Cogitate Commit to paper Communicate
- 29. Collection - Method Sources Search algoritm „Future‟ „Conflict‟ „Serious‟ Sources 29
- 30. 4. Processing - manual
- 31. Future contours of conflict The sources - breakdowns Total: 265 sources
- 32. Global parameters - Overview 1 2 3 4 5 Actors Blocs of States Pairs of States State and non-state vs. non-state State vs. non-state Non-state vs. non-state Actors Aim Physical degradation Obtain/retain/occupy Political/economic degradation Stabilize Survive Aim Definition War Militarized interstate disputes Tensions between non-state actors Political/economic tensions Between individuals Definition Distinctiveness Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Distinctiveness Domain Traditional Dimensions Modern military dimensions Political Economic Human Terrain Domain Extensiveness Global Regional Sub-regional National Domestic Extensiveness Impetus Data Interest Value Relationship Structural Impetus Length Years Months Days Hours Minutes Length Means Physical Political Economic Electronic/Cyber Information/ Psychological Means Pace Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Pace Salience Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Salience 36 1 2 3 4 5
- 33. Parameters – Values across Languages 1 2 3 4 5 Actors Blocs of States Pairs of States State and non-state vs. non-state State vs. non-state Non-state vs. non-state Actors Aim Physical degradation Obtain/retain/occupy Political/economic degradation Stabilize Survive Aim Definition War Militarized interstate disputes Tensions between non-state actors Political/economic tensions Between individuals Definition Distinctiveness Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Distinctiveness Domain Traditional Dimensions Modern military dimensions Political Economic Human Terrain Domain Extensiveness Global Regional Sub-regional National Domestic Extensiveness Impetus Data Interest Value Relationship Structural Impetus Length Years Months Days Hours Minutes Length Means Physical Political Economic Electronic/Cyber Information/ Psychological Means Pace Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Pace Salience Low Leans low Medium Leans high High Salience 1 2 3 4 5
- 34. Drivers – Rank across Languages
- 35. 5. Vizualization – manual (Papermachines) International Organizations
- 36. 5. Vizualization – automatic (Leximancer) Academic literature
- 37. 5. Vizualization – automatic (Leximancer) Academic literature
- 38. Trend 7 – More focus on non-‟known knowns‟ (1/2) Unknowns Knowns Knowns Unknowns „Lesser and included‟ A few point scenarios „Wise Prediction‟/ (Point-)Scenario-planning/ Big gambler Scenario-gambling
- 39. Trend 7 – More focus on non-‟known knowns‟ (2/2)
- 40. 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
- 41. Trend 9 – more „inside-out‟ foresight The butterfly-model general to- semadyson security Outside-in integratie Inside-out security - to- themes/caps
- 42. Outside-in / General to security
- 43. Trend 9 – More „inside-out‟ foresight vision outside-in inside-out future future me’s what are we (/do we want to be) good at? environments => capabilities integration
- 44. Trend 9 – More „inside-out‟ foresight vision outside-in inside-out future future me’s what are / do environments => we want to be capabilities good at? integration (future) capability requirements - DOTMLPFI
- 45. Trend 10 – Towards new foresight products
- 46. Traditional STRONG Orientation Navigation ‘Leader’ „Strategic monitor‟ = image(s) in the leaders‟s head
- 47. Industrial STRONG Orientation Navigation Commandant + Staffs CEO + Executive Board „Strategic monitor‟ = regular planning document
- 48. Post-Industrial STRONG? But we need a lubricant!!! Orientation Navigation Strategic monitor = diverse „open‟ future-base
- 50. Designing an Options Portfolio under Complexity
Editor's Notes
- Ask the question
- Portfolio – portfolio of capabilities and policies
- Portfolio – portfolio of capabilities and policies
- One of the big (underappreciated) stovepipes in our defence planning systems is the timehorizon-stovepipe (current (operational) planning vs. Medium-term planning vs. Long-term planning). During the Cold War and in its immediate aftermath, most capabilities planning went into medium-term planning (since no real operations were taking place). As OPTEMPO started picking up in the post-Cold War period, most planning resources were invested in current (operational) planning, mostly at the expense of both other planning horizons. Recent shocks (financial crisis) may trigger renewed interest in longer-term planning. We want to emphasize here that the main advantages of long-term planning (and the principal reason to take it more seriously than we do today) is that it allows one to relax some of the main assumptions that are generally accepted at any given moment in time and to think more ‘out of the box’ (also in terms of solutions).
- Australia, France, UK
- The items that the cabinet takes out of the (meta-)foresight are then subjected to a government-wide analytical exercise we call the National Risk Assessment. This exercise yields a matrix that indicates the rlativel likelihood and impact of those items for Dutch national security.
- This was the 2008 National Risk Assessment matrix that was presented to the Cabinet in May 2008 and then forwarded to Parliament and made public.
- Uitwerking van indicatoren die inzichtgeven of een ‘event’ zichvoortzet in een ‘trend’Hoe bepaal je in welke richting de wereld zich in het scenarioframework beweegt?Waarde zit in over enkelejarenditherhalen and kijken hoe de blod
- (Meta-) analysisBandwidth (general distribution of findings)‘Robust’ findings (where there seems to be more consensus)(Interesting) weak findings – closer look at some (interesting) outliers (plausible, internally coherent foresight views that for some reason are (currently a minority view)‘Holes’ – are there any views ‘missing’ (e.g. findings from other foresight work we’ve done (cite!!!), own thinking, etc.) ‘Trends’ – analyze the findings across times: are there any views that seem to be receding or ascending? [This may also include other things such as patterns (are certain views more typical for certain types of sources (e.g. think tanks vs. government); for certain regions (certain views more dominant in certain regions), etc.)‘So what’ – what does all of this mean? How do we interpret this? What does the meta-analysis mean? (what do we ‘know’/’not know’)What does it mean for strategic planning? (‘translation’)
- Traditional (pre-industrial) model: autocratic/‘heroic’ leadership – the strategic ‘leader’ (‘prince’, ‘commander’, ‘leader of a firm’) collects (and hoards) all the key information, plots a course and ‘steers’ his organization in that direction
- Industrial-model: ‘leader’ surrounds himself with staffs with some division of labor (and specialization). Increasingly ‘staffs’ also become co-responsible for orientation (certainly WITHIN their own stovepipes) AND navigation (still mostly just execution with SOME leeway – supported/supporting commander/mission command)[add zig-zags]
- Post-industrial model: two big changes:Nature of organization changes: more network-centric ecosystem-like (don’t be a star, be a galaxy)Nature of ‘Strong’ changes: no longer need/smart to condense/converge orientation to a single point (-prediction) and then to plot a ‘single’ course and steer (‘command and control’) the organization in that directionBetter/smarter to contemplate multiple futures (multi-perspective AND through the network/ecosystem), NOT condense/converge, NOT plot a single course but instead instill FRRANKness, develop and pursue a ‘bushy strategic tree) (ALSO through the network/ecosystem), and ‘sense (as a network/ecosystem) and respond (as a network/ecosystem)’