To govern is to foresee: An exploratory study into the relationship between futures research and strategy and policy processes at Dutch ministries
Patrick van der Duina, 
, 
, Robert van Oirschotb, Harry Koteyb and Eelco Vreelingb
aDelft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Section Technology, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Available online 4 May 2009.
Abstract
The Dutch government has to operate in an extremely complex environment with various actors who have different interests, in a time that can be considered highly uncertain. Although this makes the usefulness of and need for futures research evident, the question remains how the Dutch government uses futures research in its strategy and policy formation process. This study indicates that the use of futures research by Dutch government ministries has evolved over time, although the overwhelming importance of the short term, the difficult structural organization of futures research and a relative lack of relevant expertise at the ministries limit the impact of futures research on strategy and policy.
Article Outline
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Set-up study
- 2.1. Interviews
- 2.2. Survey
- 3. Results
- 3.1. Relationship ministry—politics
- 3.2. “The urgent drives out the important”
- 3.3. Methods of futures research
- 3.3.1. Role of futures research
- 3.3.2. Futures research is a human affair
- 3.3.3. The impact of futures research
- 3.3.3.1. Connection
- 3.3.3.2. Framework
- 3.3.3.3. Reach
- 3.4. Organization of futures research
- 3.4.1. Centralised–decentralised
- 3.4.2. Bottom-up–top-down
- 4. Conclusions
- 4.1. Reflection on results
- 4.1.1. Time horizon
- 4.1.2. Meta-forecasting
- 4.1.3. Exploring or predicting
- 4.1.4. Integral approach
- 4.1.5. Futures research process
- 4.2. Summary of reflection
- 4.3. Concluding remarks
- References
1. Introduction
To govern is to look ahead, which means that every good politician ought to have a vision of the future. It may be clear that the ability to look ahead is not a luxury. After all, these are turbulent times. It seems as though the world has entered a maelstrom of confusion, in which elusive ideological and religious contradictions go hand in hand with fast-paced technological developments, and the world is faced with ongoing globalization, an ageing population, the greenhouse effect and other large-scale environmental problems that make the future ominous and uncertain. The goal of this study is to map how and to what extent Dutch ministries are using futures research (in a broad sense of the word). What is the value of the instrument of futures research in policy formation? The central research question of this study is:“How and to what extent does futures research offer added value for strategic policy-makers at the Dutch government and in what way is it embedded (structurally) in ministries?”
2. Set-up study
The study is explorative in nature and its aim is to map the supposed diversity in futures research, which is why we have decided to include all Dutch ministries in the study. This does not mean that we have managed to map the complete diversity of futures research and their applications because, as it becomes clear from the interviews, there are differences within the ministries. Nevertheless, it may be expected that, based on the questions we asked representatives of all the ministries, we did succeed in covering all the essential aspects that play a role in the use of futures research within the various ministries. The study consisted of two phases: interviews with strategists and/or policy-makers at the ministries, and an online survey.
2.1. Interviews
We conducted thirteen interviews with strategists, knowledge workers, and policy-makers. The interviews consisted of three parts. In the first part, the interviewees were asked what futures research meant to them and what activities they carried out in this area. The second part focused mainly on the way policy and strategy processes took place, while the third part contained predominantly questions about the way futures research is embedded and applied in policy and strategy.
In a number of cases, we interviewed a single representative, but in most cases the interviews involved two people. The interviews were recorded digitally, after which transcripts were made. The transcripts were presented to the interviewees to allow them to comment and/or make the necessary modifications. Most of the modifications involved spelling errors or factual errors. In a very small number of cases, interviews wanted to change or remove certain interpretations. As a result, it is safe to say that the interviewees were very willing to cooperate and were very open during the interviews. None of the invitations we issued met with a negative response. In all, we conducted thirteen interviews involving twenty interviewees. Although the interviewees varied in terms of their function and position, in all cases strategy was an important element of their jobs. The responses were translated into an online survey, which was then presented to a larger group of strategists and policy-makers.
2.2. Survey
The broad lines we encountered in the interviews were translated into a survey, which was presented to 298 employees at ministries, universities, advisory boards, and planning agencies at the end of 2007. There was a fairly even distribution of employees within the national government (at policy or strategy clusters or a combination of the two). A quarter of the respondents who filled in the survey are employed by the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, followed by Justice (18%) and Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (11%). 61% of the respondents have worked for more than 6 years in a knowledge-related, policy-related or strategic job, while over 90% has a university degree or more. About 75% of all the respondents are between 35 and 54 years old.
At over 40% (120 surveys filled in), the response to the survey was very representative. The bandwidth for these kinds of surveys lies between 30% and 45%. 88% of the respondents worked within the national government. The remaining respondents worked at advisory boards, planning agencies of other organizations that collaborate with the national government on a regular basis with regard to futures research. In light of the unequal distribution, there is no scientific justification for a division into national government and external organizations.
The result presents a global picture of how both the ‘opponents and supporters’ of futures research, strategists, policy-makers and external organizations think about the question whether futures research offer added value to strategic policy-makers and how they are embedded within organizations. In light of the unequal distribution of respondents among the thirteen different departments, we focus on the national level.
3. Results
This study examines how ministries use futures research in policy and strategy. The interviews show that concepts like policy and strategy regularly blend. In this study, we define strategy primarily as the ideas and plans that have to help renew and adapt (exiting) policy to a future, changing society that will pose different policy questions and demands. Somewhat prosaically, policy can be viewed as the answer to today's social questions, while strategy has to provide insight into what tomorrow's questions are and how to respond to those questions. In that sense, futures research serve as ‘fuel’ for the formation of strategy, because futures research can provide the strategist with an idea about those questions regarding the future, with the aim of answering them. This means that futures research are more relevant to strategy than they are to policy. However, policy and strategy are closely related. One of the representatives of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality described it as follows: “Strategy is a part of looking ahead to where you want policy to lead”. In addition, it was remarked that strategy connects various organizational levels, while policy often affects individual sectors. This means that there is a distinction between policy and strategy, not only in terms of the dimension of time, but also with regard to subject.
3.1. Relationship ministry—politics
“As soon as the political color and people change, few will tend to concern themselves with the futures research of previous cabinets. That is a political reality and it does not have to be such a bad thing”.
3.1.1. Statement made during the interviews
An important question with this aspect is to what extent a government member plays a stimulating role in setting up futures research. We can assume that government members who are enthusiastic about this kind of studies play a more stimulating role than those who are skeptical about futures research. During the interview at Justice, the relationship between ministry and politics was expressed succinctly: “… support at the top is a necessary condition, though not a sufficient one”. Our interpretation of this is that support from the top is a good encouragement, but to get the rest of the organization on board with regard to the use and necessity of futures research, futures research project will need to have a sufficient level of added value for the civil servants involved.
In addition to this, it is also the question to which degree strategists and other futures research-related people are free to suggest certain topics. At the Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment, everything could be explored, whereas at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, a report about the pros and cons of development aid was kept under wraps. Although that report was not a pure futures study one may assume that this (limited) degree of freedom also applies to other futures studies. An example of individual initiative is from the Ministry for Domestic Affairs, where a large number of scenarios had been outlined about the various possible outcomes of the referendum regarding the European constitution and the possible consequences. At the Ministry for Economic Affairs, a conscious decision was made, incidentally, not to think about a possible negative result, due to a political veto. The interviewees added that they are allowed to start futures research on their own initiative. To some extent, they are even allowed to ‘rub people the wrong way’, keeping in mind that it is hard to keep such a study from leaking out, and often people tend to think that these kinds of studies are often mistaken for the ministry's official position. The timing of futures research also plays a role, although in this respect the picture is not completely clear. In a number of cases (in particular at Social Affairs and Employment and General Affairs), a large number of futures studies are carried in the year prior to the general elections, between elections there is decidedly less activity, because most people tend to wait and see. In fact, in the case of the Ministry for General Affairs, the result of a change of government may mean that there is less interest in the futures research of the previous ‘political color’.
The well-known idea that civil servants look further ahead than politicians turns out not to be entirely correct, since there are various members of government who, according to the interviewees, are very interested in futures research and who are thoroughly aware of their importance (even after their term in office). An example of this is the assessment of the government agreement of the prime minister Balkenende IV cabinet at Justice at the request of the Minister, and former Defense Minister Kamp was also very interested in the ‘Vision on Defense’ project. The fact that the attitude of politicians is not unequivocal becomes clear when we realize that the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport wanted to be careful in making statements about the year 2024, because the expectation was that it possible that he Dutch parliament would argue that this was too far beyond the Minister's time in office to say anything about it.
Indeed, governing is not always looking ahead.
3.2. “The urgent drives out the important”
Realizing futures research is a tricky job in a time where looking back at what has been is considered a higher form of civilization and where many are held accountable for short term results [1]. This was something that virtually all the people we interviewed had experienced. It is important to emphasize that none of the interviewees could devote every hour of every week to conducting and distributing futures research. Many of them occupied strategic positions of which making policy-related and strategic plans for the future was an important element. Of course, the degree to which this was a part of their work varied, but in all cases the time they were able to spend on futures research was under considerable pressure. The above-mentioned statement was made by Henry Kissinger, who wanted to indicate that the short term often overshadows the long term. This was something that was reflected in the interviews a number of times, sometimes as a complaint, but often also simply as a fact of life, for instance at Economic Affairs.
Some of the interviewees mentioned that ‘today's business dominates everything’. The phenomenon of ‘Parliamentary questions’ is symbolic of this and as an explanation of why it is so difficult to clear time to carry out futures research. ‘Not now’ is often the motto (or excuse) to put futures research on hold in favor of operational matters. In this respect, we need to keep in mind that, although a cabinet period (4 years) may at first appear long, due to the time that is needed to prepare, implement and evaluate (new) policies four years is not that far into the future. In addition, the pace with which developments take place in various policy areas requires an even longer time horizon, which means that, in relative terms, four is even shorter.
In 38% of all cases, the time horizon of the futures research that are carried out is 5–10 years. Futures studies that have a time horizon of 10–15 years or 1–5 years are virtually equal (between 23% and 25%). The time horizon is 15–20 years in only 6% of all cases, and in only 3% it is more than 20 years. Apparently, futures research is predominantly used to explore the medium and long term. One of the interviewees at Economic Affairs presented the short term to long term relationship as a paradox or dilemma, using globalization as an example, a phenomenon that many consider elusive and problematic as a result, according to the interviewee, of the fact that governments are less and less in control of things. On the hand this means that there is increasing pressure from the political arena to provide answers quickly, while on the other hand there is a clear need for a vision and strategy with regard to globalization.
3.3. Methods of futures research
Many of the interviewees are familiar with the available methods to conduct futures research. Virtually all the respondents (99%) are familiar with scenarios, and it became clear from the interviews that this is the method that is used most frequently. Essayistic considerations and quantitative futures research are also very well-known, but they are both used much less frequently. It is striking to see that the number of methods being used is much smaller than the number with which the respondents are familiar. Possible reasons that emerged during the interviews may be the complexity of the instrument and the limited possibilities for a concrete translation into policy. (Table 1).
Methods with which respondents are familiar and use respectively.
| Method | Know/familiar | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Scenarios | 99.2% | 92.5% |
| Future essays | 75.8% | 55.8% |
| Quantitative future research | 73.3% | 58.3% |
| Delphi-method | 60.8% | 27.5% |
| Game simulations | 54.2% | 18.3% |
| Future workshops | 54.2% | 38.3% |
| Comparative future research | 41.7% | 23.3% |
| Interactive backcasting | 39.2% | 14.2% |
| Weak signal method | 35.8% | 17.5% |
| Other | 5.0% | 6.7% |
| None | 0% | 0.8% |
| Do not know | 0.0% | 2.5% |
3.3.1. Role of futures research
At the ministries, futures research play various roles. In most cases, they are used as a source of inspiration, in particular because they provide insight into possible new and important social themes or to approach a certain theme from various angles.
In addition, futures research is used to set the agenda. New subjects are explored and estimations are made as to what the future impact may be on the Dutch society and how important they should be in strategy and policy processes. In that sense, setting the agenda goes beyond providing inspiration, because it not only involves mapping possible new social issues, but it also is about indicating what the specific significance of a new theme could be. The claim we made earlier that the current political situation has an impact on the decision whether or not to use futures research would appear to support this argument.
Terms like ‘antenna function’ and ‘radar’ were also used regularly during the interviews, which referred to picking up the signals of possible future social developments. These metaphors are very powerful, of course, and in an interview at Justice they were accompanied by the term ‘look out’. In that sense, futures research is not merely a future-oriented activity, but also a method for looking at the (physical) outside world. From a number of interviews in which the outcome of the referendum about the EU constitution, which surprised many politicians, it became clear that it was especially the ‘antenna’ role of futures research that was appreciated (Table 2).
Assessment of successful futures research.
| Option | Choice |
|---|---|
| If they have managed to put relevant subjects on the map | 71.7% |
| If they have contributed to greater insight and knowledge within departments | 64.2% |
| If a clear connection has been made with policy | 62.5% |
| If they have broadened the policy agenda | 52.5% |
| If they have led to a publication | 2.5% |
| Never | 0.8% |
The survey indicates that futures research is used in particular for the strategic function (31%), the knowledge function (13%) or a combination of the two (33%), and in only 5% for the policy function of the department. In 45% of all cases, the initiative to use futures research came from the strategic department, in 21% from the policy department and only in 6% the responsibility rests with the regular knowledge department. We want to point out that strategy and knowledge are often combined and that it is mainly the distinction between strategy/knowledge and policy that is relevant. There was only one respondent who indicated not to consider futures research successful.
Although inspiring, setting the agenda and signaling are three different roles, they can also be seen as each other's extensions. They can be placed on a continuum, with signaling as the most abstract and cautious approach to the future, while in the case of inspiring the future takes on a more concrete form, and setting the agenda involves, as far as possible, a fairly clear idea of what the themes of the future are (Fig. 1).
A possible assessing role of futures research is not popular. According to some of the interviewees, it gave them an uncomfortable feeling, because they felt they were being monitored. Although in many cases, futures research was not intended to evaluate (existing) policy and strategy, it is possible to provide a good example of a case where it was used for that purpose, while at the same time showing an application of futures research in policy and strategy processes. The Balkenende IV government agreement was at the time evaluated at Justice in a number of scenarios and, although this was done at the request of the Minister, the interviewees were not at liberty to comment on the outcome. Nevertheless, we are convinced that this example provides indications that an evaluating role of futures research can be useful and provide concrete insights, because we may assume that it is precisely the concrete nature of the results of the above-mentioned assessment that caused those in charge to ban any communication.
3.3.2. Futures research is a human affair
The interviewees were also asked specifically about the (possible) competencies of futures researchers. The answers varied from being able to establish analytical connections, the ability to think outside of the box, the presence of a broad (social) scope, being creative, having a good inter-ministry network, and the ability to make choices as to what is (will be) important in the future. Also, terms like entrepreneurs, ‘self-starts’, having an empathic approach to policy problems, being able to build a fruitful relationship with policy boards, being pro-active, being able to pick up signals, and being able to act quickly were used. Finally, the interviewees mentioned the ability to look across boundaries, people who occasionally swim against the prevailing current, who are able to ‘motivate’ others and show them the ropes, and the ability to ‘connect’ both internally and externally.
The complete list can be summarized in three aspects that are important to a person who is involved with futures research and their application in strategy and policy at one of the Ministries:
- 1. using the right half of the brain,
2. being good at relationships, both internally and externally,
3. being up to speed with regard to one's particular area.
(1) Futures research methods are no algorithms, and they require more than simply applying certain futures research methods. In other words, this competence involves creativity and thinking out of the box. It may be taking things a little too far to ask futures researchers and strategist to think the unthinkable all of the time, but a healthy dose of imagination and a professional interest in unlikely (although possibly very important) developments does fit this particular competence.
(2) Because it is impossible to explore the future on one's own, it makes sense to use the skills and knowledge of others as much as possible during the futures research process. This means that the futures researcher must be able to communicate with others and indicate what knowledge and information is needed. In addition, it is important for the futures researcher to know where to get that knowledge and information, which requires an extensive and high quality network that needs to reach beyond government circles and include people or organizations from the outside world. This is a skill that becomes more important for people who are not themselves involved in futures research and who outsource the activities to other, external organizations. Generally speaking, we may conclude from the interviews that a majority of the futures studies at the various ministries are carried out by others, and that most of the activities in the area of futures research consist of research into the ministries’ specific situations. The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, for instance, does not conduct any futures research of its own, outsourcing them instead to external agencies, and the ‘Four Futures’ scenarios of the CPB1 play an important role.
(3) In addition to being able to gather relevant information and knowledge, a futures researcher also has to have sufficient expertise (or domain knowledge) to determine the value of the information and knowledge. Although the process of futures research and the methods that are required are not unimportant (in fact, they are often underestimated), the future's researcher's expertise, and that of close colleagues, also deserves a significant place in the futures research process, if only because department staff needs to be able to decide whether a certain subject warrants the use of futures research. Consequently, the frequently voiced complaint that there is not enough expertise within the Dutch government presents a problem from the point of view of futures research.
3.3.3. The impact of futures research
Futures research is not a goal in themselves but serves as input for a strategic process. Virtually all the interviewees agreed with this statement. Nevertheless, it turns out to be difficult to apply the results of futures research. There are a number of factors that play a role in this respect.
3.3.3.1. Connection
First of all, the ‘tragic’ situation exists whereby the need for futures research also endangers their significance and use. In other words, the long time it takes to develop strategy and policy that makes it necessary to look to the future also means that it is harder to determine the impact of futures research. Many people have a short memory, which means that the connection between earlier futures research and the eventual strategy is often lost. Futures research is also often one of the various types of input in the policy and strategy formation process, in addition to all kinds of other information. At General Affairs it was argued that, although meetings in which the results of futures research were discussed were useful, the results in question often exist only in the minds of people, which means that it is not necessarily the case that decisions are based on a specific futures study or can be traced back to a specific meeting.
One of the interviewees at Education, Culture and Science stated that the impact of futures research is related to the extent to which they are connected to policy. The follow-up question as to how this should be achieved was a tricky one, but there were ideas about measuring this at a narrative level, in other words estimating to what extent people within the organization itself apply the results of the futures research. In this respect, one of the interviewees referred to Shell, where people work for a while within the scenarios department and then return to the organization, which means a connection is made at a personal level.
3.3.3.2. Framework
One way to determine whether or not a futures study has had an impact is to investigate how often references are made to strategy and policy documents. In many interviews, the question how often futures research is used was answered by referring to CPB scenarios. The WLO scenarios2 and the SCP3 scenarios were also mentioned frequently, in addition to the ministries’ own futures research. However, referring to a futures study is not necessarily the same as actually applying it, as was mentioned by many of the interviewees at Economic Affairs, who added that these kinds of studies are often seen as a way to ‘keep an eye on the bigger picture’. At Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the term ‘bandwidths’ was predominantly used in this context. As far as the use of futures research is concerned, this means specifically that they are used as a framework. It is hard to determine how direct their impact is, and they will be interpreted differently by different people.
We want to mention in particular a project that was completed early 2008 by Justice (in collaboration with WODC4), the aim of which was to create a so-called early warning system on the basis of scenarios that were made within the framework of the ‘Justice about tomorrow’ project. The goal of the early warning system is to monitor social trends to determine in which scenario to begin. This makes it possible to better whether existing policy is still effective or whether society is changing in such a way that it requires strategic thinking about policy adjustments. We feel that this project is a good example of a follow-up of a futures study and a good attempt to establish a clear link between a futures study on the one hand, and policy and strategy on the other hand.
3.3.3.3. Reach
It also possible to look at the impact futures research has on strategy from the point of view of reach, for example with regard to the number of civil servants who are informed about a certain futures study. In that light, Scanning the Future by the CPB and the WLO study has a considerable impact and it was with undeniable pride that the interviewee from Health, Welfare and Sport referred to the thousands of booklets that had been ordered and sent about a scenario study concerning 2020. We should also mention the busy meetings at Economic Affairs where, for example, the new figures of the International Energy Agency (IEA) are announced. Needless to say, it is hard to know what the impact is of all these documents and meetings, but at least something is being done.
A possible explanation for the level of impact futures research has on strategy and policy is how concrete the ministry's subject is. The interviewee from Foreign Affairs said that, at that ministry, futures research is tricky, because “the connection to the everyday activities (is) not that evident”. At Health, Welfare and Sport, a remark was made that, although the futures study resulted in (good) discussions, it was hard to “connect them to a much more concrete outcome”.
3.4. Organization of futures research
3.4.1. Centralised–decentralised
Like many other organizational functions and processes, the organization of futures research processes (and embedding them into strategy and policy) lies in a continuum between centralised and decentralised. At Health, Welfare and Sport, for example, the strategic function and the organization and application of futures research is decentralised. Every director is expected to think about the future in his or her own policy area, after which the outcomes of these initiatives are combined in various forms of consultation and ‘direction bodies’. Ultimately, the minister decides what the strategy and policy will be. This is an example of a decentralised futures research process that starts at the bottom and finally reaches the political top, where a decision is made.
Of course, in addition to internal relationships, we also looked for interdepartmental collaboration. Long term broad social developments affect various ministries. In addition, in some areas, ministries are so interconnected that joint research is desirable. As far as the organization of futures research is concerned, it is also possible to formalize all decentralised futures studies or initiatives of the various ministries, resulting in an overarching initiative of futures research. The viability of such an initiative is doubtful, in light of the disappearance of a large part of the strategic function of General Affairs. In addition, not many interviewees were enthusiastic about such an initiative. Often, relevant ministries collaborate anyway and the strategic meetings are considered useful, but there does not seem to be a need for further formalization. Perhaps this kind of initiative is seen as not concrete enough, which is a complaint that was also made with regard to futures research that includes fewer ministries.
However, for 74% of the interviewees, interdepartmental research is important to very important. 42% even feels that the current level or frequency is insufficient. Only 24% feels that enough research is taking place. This is an argument in favor of more attention to the overlap between ministries and the way they can reinforce one another pre-competitively.
3.4.2. Bottom-up–top-down
In essence, the distinction between a centralised and decentralised approach has to do with the place in the organization where the responsibility for the organization and execution with regard to strategy and futures exploration is located, in other words, the organizational location. However, this does not mean that no strategic and future-related thinking takes place elsewhere within the ministries. To explain this phenomenon, we use the distinction between bottom-up and top-down. This does not mean that the futures exploration processes take place either high up or at a lower level within the organization, but that the initial initiatives can take place at both higher and lower organizational levels. In other words, it has to do with the direction of the futures exploration process. At Foreign Affairs, for instance, since the strategic department was discontinued, initiatives in the area of futures research originated predominantly at various departments within the organization, without necessarily involving the highest level of the organization. The various boards within the ministry have the option to initiate and carry out futures studies. This has to do with process-related direction of the futures exploration processes.
Combining the two dimensions discussed above (centralised–decentralised; bottom-up–top-down) results in a matrix with four quadrants, with each quadrant indicating how, from an organizational and process-related point of view, futures exploration processes are given shape within the ministries. In each quadrant, the futures research process takes place in a different way, and the role of the futures researcher is a different one as well. At ministries where the futures researchers have a centralised position within the organization and the futures exploration processes are top-down in nature, the role of the futures researchers is above all context-defining. Futures research is carried out at the highest level and then passed on to the rest of the organization. In the case of a combination between a ‘top-down’ and ‘decentralised’ approach, the responsibility for futures research is located in a limited number of places within the organization and it is considered very important to involve the rest of the organization. When ‘centralised’ and ‘bottom-down’ are combined, the various initiatives with regard to futures research is facilitated, but it is important that the various initiatives are combined and monitored centrally. Finally, the combination ‘decentralised–bottom-up’ in practice means that both the organizational responsibility and the initiative for futures research itself is not centralised and formalized, but left to the individual organizational unites, who decide whether or not to engage in futures research.
A logical question is how the various ministries can be placed within the four quadrants (see Fig. 2). Due to the diversity, it is difficult to place all the ministries within the framework, it is possible to position a number of ministries and explain why, to shed light on the four different characterizations of futures research. As far as the combination ‘centralised–bottom-up’ is concerned, Education, Culture and Science (ECS) can be used as an example. We see that, at this ministry, the strategic function is located at a relatively central level, and it is considered desirable to facilitate initiatives with regard to futures explorations throughout the organization. The interviewees from this ministry referred to this as a ‘chaos model’. The Ministry for Finance is also a fitting example of this combination, because on the one hand the CPB's ‘Four Futures scenario’ is used as a management framework, but on the other hand many research questions regarding the future originate at lower levels, after which they are investigated further together with the Strategic Policy Planning department.
Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (ANFQ) can be placed in the ‘centralised–top-down’ quadrant, although it will become clear that the term ‘directive’ that is associated with this quadrant does not apply completely. At this ministry, the strategy function is located in a staff department that operates at an overarching level and that tries to establish connections in issues that affect the entire ministry. The interviewee of this ministry emphasized that the internal strategic collaboration is not hierarchical in nature and that the main task of the strategy department is to ‘seduce’ others. Nevertheless, we feel that the top-down approach is the dominant one, because in most cases the central strategy department has the lead. This is expressed, for example, in the fact that the various boards within the ministries are referred to as ‘customers’ and centrally directed attempts are made to ‘stimulate the strategic ability and put themes on the agenda’. The execution of and/or initiative for study then take place at or from the Knowledge Board.
As far as we are concerned, Foreign Affairs can be placed in the ‘decentralised–bottom-up’ quadrant. To be honest, this allocation is somewhat ‘forced’, because, since the strategy department of this ministry was recently dismantled, most initiatives for futures studies can only originate in a bottom-up way and have to be organized in a decentralised way. Decentralising the strategic function was a deliberate move to encourage people to think about the future themselves.
In our estimation, Health, Welfare and Sport (HWS) can be place in the ‘decentralised–top-down’ quadrant. Although there is no central strategy department (in fact, none of the ministries has a central strategy department), our main argument for this positioning is that various boards throughout the ministry have strategic departments that are intensively involved in futures research and that manage most of the futures research processes. The interviewee from this ministry indicated that the boards play an important role in this respect.
4. Conclusions
4.1. Reflection on results
In the previous section, we mentioned to main results from our study. In this section, we want to reflect on the findings by comparing them to a number of other studies in the area of futures research and government. We look at a study by the WRR (Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy) from 2004, in which the first major futures studies project from 1977 is evaluated [2] and [3]. We apply the lessons from that evaluation to the summarizing findings from this study.
In 2004, WRR carried out an evaluation of ‘The next twenty-five years. A futures study for the Netherlands’, one of the first main futures studies carried out by the WRR in 1977. After 25 years, it seemed a good occasion to investigate to what extent the initial research related to the situation 25 years later. This evaluation was published by the WRR in the ‘research’ series, with the title ‘Twenty-five years later. The futures exploration of the WRR from 1977 as a learning process’. In the WRR report, the future of 17 social concept was explored, including leisure time, education, transport, climate change and communication. In the subsequent evaluation, 16 of these subjects were evaluated. The evaluation resulted in five learning points:
- • the importance of varying the time horizon: because the dynamics of the social subjects are not the same, the time horizon does not have to be 25 years in all cases,
• the importance of meta-forecasting: a futures study should not only be about the future of a certain subject, but start by providing an estimation of that subject in the future. That is, why should one choose to investigate the future of a specific topic? Is that topic still important in the future? This question is relevant since often studies of the future are more about the present than about the future. The subject of climate change from the WRR study, for example, clearly meets this requirement,
• exploring rather than predicting: although the WRR study contains two scenarios and the accuracy of a number of sub-studies is certainly not disappointing, in light of the time horizon of 25 years and the increasing social dynamics, it makes more sense to explore rather than predict the future,
• an integral approach: in the 1977 study, the various subjects are approach in relative isolation. Although an integral approach would no make looking to the future any easier, it makes sense to include the connections between the various subjects,
• realize a variety of opinions: the 1997 studies were often written by individuals who wrote down their own personal views. It would be wiser to gauge various opinions to prevent a personal bias, opinion or, which would be worse, interest.
Below, we apply the five lessons described above to this study.
4.1.1. Time horizon
From the interviews, it became clear that there is a great deal of differentiation with respect to the time horizon of futures research. Rather than referring to specific time frames, a distinction is drawn between the short term, medium term, and long term. At Social Affairs and Employment, for example, the medium term is considered on the basis of the recommendations by the SER5. At Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, specific years were being mentioned: at the DG Living, the future starts at 2015 or 2020, while at the DG's Spatial Planning and Environment, the year 2030 is used as a marker. At Justice, when a time horizon of three to four years is used, the term ‘multi-annual perspective’ is applied. In addition, at Justice, there is an awareness that it makes demographic sense to use a time horizon of 20–25 years from now, while with regard to information technology (IT) a two to four year time frame is used.
However, the diversity in terms of the time horizons that are being used can become limited when the same studies are being used too much and too often. Although it is good to know that people often refer to CPB scenarios and SCP studies, and even better to hear that they are applied often, the result may be that the time horizon that is used in these scenarios and studies is copied, with in turn leads to a convergence with regard to time horizons. And although the ministries may adapt these studies to suit their own situation, this does not mean that the time horizon is also adapted accordingly.
4.1.2. Meta-forecasting
Unlike the other evaluation points, meta-forecasting is not a generally known concept, so it is not surprising that the interviewees had little to say about it. As a result, one may assume that this is not a common approach to futures research. Possible future issues are rarely the subject of futures research, or at best they are only a small part of the futures research process. The lack of self-reflection with the regard to the question whether or not the right subjects are being examined can perhaps be explained by the pressure of urgent problems that was mentioned frequently in the interviews. Current problems will, consciously or not, arouse a certain curiosity and require a different exploration. However, today's parliamentary questions are not automatically tomorrow's parliamentary questions, which is the reason for the frequently voiced complaint that futures research often provide more information about today's problems and idea than about those of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
4.1.3. Exploring or predicting
Generally speaking, the interviews admitted that it is hard to predict the future and that exploring the future may be a better approach. At Transport, Public Works and Water Management, for instance, futures research used to be carried out on the basis of a single scenario (a kind of ‘average’ scenario), while at the moment the intention is to take a broader view and “take on board various scenarios with more concrete applications”. Nevertheless, in a number of interviews it was said that certain aspects of the future can be ‘known’. At Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, so-called ‘cohort effects’ were mentioned: “…education at primary schools in the early 1990s, starters on the housing market in 2000, ageing population in 2050”.
The alleged ability to shape society is also important to approaching the future. A number of interviewees argued that, although the somewhat ‘smaller’ trends are easier to manage and can therefore to some extent be predicted, the ‘megatrends’ should be treated as a given, which makes them hard to influence. This does not mean that they are automatically impossible (or harder) to predict, because it is possible to model them, which means, at least according to the ministry, that it is possible to formulate relevant policy. The term ‘autonomous development’ was mentioned, which means that some developments can be managed to a very limited extent. To devise strategy and policy for this kind of developments, scenarios are used, an explorative kind of futures research.
What is perhaps the best evidence in favor of the claim that the explorative approach to the future is the dominant one at the Dutch government ministries is the fact that the scenario methods are very popular. Many of the futures studies that are conducted at the ministries contain various scenarios, and often the term ‘scenario’ was mentioned quickly when we asked the interviewees what the term ‘futures research’ meant to them.
4.1.4. Integral approach
Based on the interviews and the results of the survey, we can conclude that there is awareness with regard to the usefulness of adopting an integral approach to futures research, but that such an approach is hard to realize in practice. Having said that, various attempts to realize an integrated are being made. At Transport, Spatial Planning and the Environment, for instance, ‘demographic shrinkage’ (i.e., less population) was mentioned as an example, and there was an awareness that other ministries would also be affected, even though it was not yet clear who would be responsible for the integral effects at government level. At Finance, the collaboration with various other ministries was mentioned explicitly, while at Justice, the interviewees mentioned that, although some policy files (that may provide a cause for an exploration) may be very thin, there is also a broader approach to the future, as witnessed by the fact that subjects like converging technologies, nano-technology, biotechnology and brain science are also on the agenda.
A more elaborated approach to integrality in futures research is the concept of Integral Futures (e.g., [4]), of which the methodological aspects, as described by ([5] and [6]), are relevant to this study, which focuses on the process aspects. According to Voros, an integral approach to futures research consists of epistemological, ontological and methodological pluralism, and it “accepts as co-foundational the role of subjectivity in inquiry (…)” (p. 198). In the survey, the respondents were asked with which methods they were familiar and which methods they used (see Table 2, Section 3.3). To assess the methodological pluralism, the actual use of methods is important. Table 2 shows that the scenario method is by far the most frequently used method (92.5%), followed by quantitative research (58.3%), future essays (55.8%) and future workshops (38.3%). Other methods that are used reasonably often are comparative future research, game simulations and the Delphi-method. From this list, it would seem that strategists and policy-makers use different types of methods of futures research, quantitative and qualitative, predictive and exploring, and expert-based and participatory in nature. Although there are no (absolute) measures, we can conclude that methodological pluralism is definitely present at Dutch ministries.
With regard to the co-foundational role of subjectivity in ‘inquiring’ into the future, we have identified the top-down influence of politicians and bottom-up involvement of experts and other actors in the environment of the ministry. The top-down subjective influence of politicians is quite clear, resulting from their (explicit) support or lack of support for studies of the future or the acceptance of rejection of results based on their particular political agenda. The bottom-up subjective influence is partly managed by the originators of the futures studies who decide who to involve. In the next section, it will become clear that ‘outside-in’-thinking is often limited to inviting (familiar) people (experts) from government-related networks. We would argue that the top-down influence, on the whole, does not improve futures research and its impact on policy and strategy (although political support is good in itself), and that the subjective bottom-up influence has a better impact and as a result may be enlarged if this were to mean that (new) people outside the traditional governmental networks are to be involved, possibly providing new information and insights to the futures research process.
4.1.5. Futures research process
Virtually no futures exploration process at the various ministries is an isolated affair. Usually, several experts are invited to provide input, and it became clear from the interview that people admit that there are things they do not know. However, although nowadays virtually all ministries invite various experts to participate in futures research processes, generally speaking there was no tendency to involve experts from completely different sectors (outside of government). The idea was that people should have at least some feeling with the subject and that too much distance from the policy areas is not a good thing. At Justice, for instance, experts from areas like the prison service, judges, etc. were invited, but other experts, like trendwatchers and industrial designers were not included, although there was an ambition to do so with future projects. The situated at Education, Culture and Science is virtually identical. Here, too, outsiders are asked to provide some input, but these outsiders are always people who belong to the traditional network or who are involved in education. Here, too, there was a desire to include experts from further afield: “Ideally, we would include people who would say unexpected things. We will organize a meeting soon, and I think it may be worthwhile to invite an eccentric philosopher who I know will have interesting ideas, and who will say things that, at first value, have nothing to do with education, but that may turn out to be relevant after all”. At Economic Affairs, this ideal has to some extent been realized. In one future exploration, a number of artists and trendwatchers were invited. However, the general conclusion may be that, although there is a growing trend to include experts from outside the usual network, the average exotic level of the experts that are consulted is not extremely high.
The increasing involvement of external experts also means that the futures research process at the various ministries has become more interactive. The fact that this does not mean that everybody suddenly becomes a philosopher becomes clear at Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: “interactive policy development is only possible after one has thought things through oneself”. In other words, the opinions of others can only be incorporated properly after one's own opinions are clear. Of course, it is important in this respect to be able to keep an open mind for the input of others.
4.2. Summary of reflection
Generally speaking, we can say that the ministries have learned the lessons that can be drawn from the WRR. That does not mean that there was an awareness with regard to these lessons among the ministries in general and the interviewees in particular, but that does not affect the positive outcome. People think carefully about which time horizon is appropriate for certain types of future studies and they are able to adapt the time horizon to suit the subject and organizational unit in question. Things are a little more difficult when it comes to meta-forecasting. Al the purpose of many futures studies is to register signals from society, the ‘future-proofness’ of those signals is not always tested. Many signals are taken for granted, and the fact that a signal has not been registered does not invite critical reflection. The political context in which many strategists operate will also affect the choice of subject of the futures research, which means that the present may well play a more important role than the future.
The approach to futures research at the various ministries would appear to match the general historical development of futures research, with its shift from predicting the future towards exploring it. People are aware that government is hardly able to shape society, but there does not appear to be any bad feeling about that. Apparently, the explorative approach to the future matches the government's policy and strategy processes and the awareness that government is one among a number of actors. That does not mean that the predictive approach has been abandoned completely, as witnessed by the regular appearance of terms like ‘policy exploration’ and ‘policy scenarios’. However, people are above all aware that the future is hard to predict, and that exploring the future is an excellent alternative.
As far as the existence of an integral approach is concerned, one could argue that people are searching for a balance between taking a broad look at society on the one hand, and making sure that policy areas are not stretched out to such an extent that it becomes impossible to formulate concrete policies. At the same time, there appears to be a need to adopt a broader view with regard to how (future) policy issues depend on other policy areas and social developments. The increasing popularity of the explorative approach to the future (see above) and the involvement of qualified ‘outsiders’ (experts) (see below) in our view are clearly connected to this development.
The times that civil servants only considered their own opinions regarding the future are genuinely in the past. People seem to find it relatively easy to involve others and include other information. On the other hand, there is still a tendency to cling to the traditional networks, rather than engage in ‘open future research’ (in an analogy with the concept of ‘open innovation’ [7]. What also became clear in a number of interviews is that the formulation of strategy and policy has a highly political component, which means that the information that is included is limited. However, the trend towards including external information with regard to futures research is unmistakable. Ultimately, this will lead to a strategic conversation (cf. [8]) or discourse, in which an increasing diversity of experts will take part (Box 1).
Box 1. An audit for organizational futurists by Andy Hines.
To a certain extent, this research is about how to organize or institutionalize futures research. A guideline is provided by futurist Andy Hines [9], in which ten question must be answered. Some of these questions, although they are formulated a bit differently, have been addressed more or less in this article, such as What is your positioning?, What is your framework? and What are your purposes?, but some issues have not discussed. Although it would be taking things too far to discuss the seven other questions here, we will address two of them. For instance, with regard to leadership style, Hines uses leadership styles developed by Daniel Coleman. These styles are placed on a continuum, ranging from participant-oriented to leader-oriented, with intermediate categories being democratic, affiliative, pace-setting, authoritative and coercive. Although the diversity of futures research within the Dutch ministries is relatively high, we can reasonably say that leadership mainly involves a participant-oriented style. It could be that the strategic policy-makers have insufficient confidence to adopt a more leader-oriented style. But it is more likely that a participant-oriented style is ‘chosen’ because that is more in line with the consensus that characterizes decision-making in Dutch society in general and Dutch politics in particular.
Another relevant question is: Who is your audience? Hines draws a distinction between: true believers (fans of the future), bridge-builders (ambassadors of the future), fence-sitters (future awaiters) and laggards (opponents of the future). Again, this can be seen as a continuum. The ‘audience’ of the Dutch ministries is very diverse, but we would argue that the main emphasis is on the fence-sitters and that the bridge-builders come in second place, at a considerable distance that should not be underestimated. True believers and laggards come in last and we think that from a quantitative perspective they are in balance.
4.3. Concluding remarks
What is the value of futures research for strategic policy-makers and how is the process embedded in organizations? This is the question with which we began this study. Given the diversity of the way Dutch ministries use futures research in political and strategic (see, for instance, Fig. 2), this means that is difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions. However, instead of attempting to do so, we think that every ministry should address the following four dilemmas to improve the use of futures research in political and strategic processes. The dilemmas are based on the results of this study.
Dilemma 1: A better embeddedness of futures research in the political domain without being encapsulated by politicians. (Relationship ministry-politics)
The ultimate wish of every civil servant involved in futures research in government policy and strategy making is to impress political decision-makers and to persuade them to use the results of futures studies. This study indicates that political decision-makers (i.e., the heads of Ministries) who acknowledge the importance of these studies and who support them have a positive impact on the use of futures studies. However, some interviewees also said that the involvement of politicians carries certain risks, since they may decide not to accept certain outcomes of the futures studies because they are not in line with their personal views or with existing policy.
Dilemma 2: Focusing on the long-term while showing added value in the short-term. (“The urgent drives out the important”)
From a practical perspective, it has been shown that urgent matters are put on the agenda before long term matters, not so much by the strategists and policy-makers themselves, but by their managers and as a result of political events that (appear to) require a speedy response. And although the value of looking to the future is generally considered to be high, in most cases short term considerations prevail. Strategists and policy-makers must find arguments to convince their clients (i.e., their managers and politicians) that it is a wise thing to balance short term and long term, and that short term and long term considerations are not necessarily at odds with each other. One way to do so is to see short term matters as exponents or ‘weak signals’ of long term trends. Long term considerations are then no longer merely dreams about the future, but they may provide an indication of future events, giving politicians and other higher echelon civil servants sufficient time to prepare for these.
Dilemma 3: Futures research is both a left-brain and a right-brain activity at the same time. (Futures research is a human affair)
Contrary to many other professional skills, futures research is not only a set of methods that can be taught, it also requires a lot of creativity. The first aspects of futures research can be used to counter all those people who argue that the future does not exist and (therefore) cannot be predicted. The second aspect may address some of their criticism because, in a formal setting in which civil servants operate, these kinds of intangible elements are not highly valued. Strategist and policy-makers at Dutch ministries must somehow position this intangibility in the competences needed for applying futures research. The case for having the formal skills to carry out futures research is easier to make, and also makes it easier to outsource (if necessary) futures research, because having these skills makes it also possible to evaluate the quality and usefulness of outsourced studies of the future.
Dilemma 4: Organizational embedding and flexibility of futures research. (Organization of futures research)
Many interviewees told us about how, in recent years, the responsibility of conducting futures research has shifted within their ministry. In some ways this is understandable and even a good thing, because organizations change (especially Dutch ministries), and so does the organizational position of futures research. On the other hand, given the ‘natural’ suspicion with regard to futures research, every organizational change puts the continuation of futures research on the agenda. Thus, a solution has to be found as to how, on the one hand, to ensure the flexibility of futures research to ensure that it is being kept in line with organizational changes, while, on the other hand, giving futures research a steady organizational position to make sure that it has the space and time needed to carry out long term projects.
References
PDF (105 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2) PDF (118 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1) PDF (177 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)
