forefront
Futures thinking and the
steep learning curves of
the twenty-first century
Irving H. Buchen
The author
Irving H. Buchen is Vice President of Academic Affairs at Aspen
University, Denver, Colorado, USA (E-mail: ibuchen@msn.com).
Keywords
Lifelong learning, Performance management,
Change management
Abstract
Do futurists really think differently? Does focusing on the future
shape distinctive thought patterns and problem solving
methodologies? Is there an inevitable futurist signature not
unlike that of science fiction authors? If there is such a separate
commodity as futurist thinking, are its benefits sufficiently
generic and attractive enough to overcome the typical resistance
to looking and thinking ahead?
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-6689.htm
The important thing to forecast is not the television
but the soap opera (Isaac Asimov)
No more rewards for forecasting rain, only for
building arks (Lou Gerstener, IBM)
Being smart means accomplishing something
beyond current levels of ability
(Robert X. Cringelky)
Isaac Asimov (1999) defined science fiction (SF)
as “an escape to reality”. That is a neat way of
softening the threat but leaving intact the truth.
But that protective dimension of escape has
diminished to the point where the imagined vision
has escaped from the future to become the reality
of the present. SF morphing into science fact has
to be taken seriously for a number of reasons.
Most obvious, the forecasting record of SF is
too impressive to ignore; two-thirds of its
projections happen in one form or another. Then,
too, the alliance of imagination and technology
outmatches and outperforms the standard linear
analysis of think tank professionals. The future, in
fact, is not just encouraged but comes into being
coincidental with the break-through of innovation.
In addition, the narrative scenarios of SF
persuasively adjust shock to stretch. The reality
presented is thus always less extravagant and more
acceptable, even livable. Finally, in the end SF is
not only a way of rendering but also a mode of
learning in its own right. It is one of the key
incarnations of futures thinking/learning.
But that may sound precious. Can it be claimed
that futurists really think differently? Does a
recurrent fixation on the future shape distinctive
thought patterns, problem solving methodologies,
pattern detection, etc? Is there an inevitable
futurist signature not unlike that of SF authors?
Are futurist consultants sufficiently set apart from
their less future-driven counterparts as to be
understood, valued and even preferred as such by
prospective clients? Finally, if there is such a
separate commodity as futurist thinking, are its
benefits sufficiently generic and attractive enough
to overcome the typical resistance to looking and
thinking ahead? Finally, is it communicable?
Clearly, it already is. It can be found in K-12
adaptations of futures labs and modules, (as in
Rover Elementary School in Tempe, Arizona). It
also is obviously alive and well in the number of
university offerings and especially the enduring
efforts of undergraduate and graduate programs
like that of the University of Houston at Clear Lake
City. The contributions and impacts of resident
futurists like Ian Wilson at General Electric cannot
be minimized. One might even argue that his
seminars on futures influenced the later
development and refinement of Six Sigma by GE.
Indeed, probably the most pervasive influence
foresight
Volume 6 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp. 121-127
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1463-6689
DOI 10.1108/14636680410547726
121