A Licence for Navigating the Future
E-Book, Englisch, 240 Seiten
ISBN: 978-3-86414-888-0
Verlag: REDLINE
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Kein
Making the economy and society fit for the future begs the question: how will the energy needs of tomorrow be met? What measures need to be implemented by companies and communities today in order to be future-proof tomorrow? Current developments like power line conflicts, the phase-out of nuclear energy and meeting growing supply expectations demonstrate that, to solve this strategic challenge, decision-makers from business, politics and the wider community have to develop new sets of skills and foresight competencies.
In this book, the authors set out the possible scenarios, their consequences and the essential factors for securing tomorrow's energy supply. They also provide the information needed by readers to earn their 'energy licence'. It's a licence designed to qualify the holder to recognise key developments, trends and options for the energy future, and to take the necessary action within their own organisations.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
1
You Can’t Manage What You Can’t See
“Every generation needs a new revolution.” Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the US The right tool at the right time
When you discuss the future with decision-makers in industry and politics, at some point there is always an objection about its invisibility: nobody is able to see the future. How can you manage something that you can’t see? It is true that none of us has ever seen the future – with the exception, perhaps, of Nostradamus. But this is precisely the reason why decision-makers use tools to make the future visible: for example, prognoses. Everyone has at some point followed a trend extrapolation, which has been created for an annual budget or a sales prognosis for the next quarter. Everyone has also at some time peered into the future while packing their holiday suitcase. What will the weather be like? Better play it safe and take that warm sweater along. Do you really think that these examples are poor methods of forecasting? You may be surprised. On the other hand, you probably aren’t surprised. You know only too well how it works in practice. Decision-makers confirm time and time again, for example, that they do not consider trend extrapolation to be the most innovative and reliable method. But it does provide an initial point of reference and it’s fast and cost-effective. Or is it? That is precisely the problem. It isn’t, at least not in every case. In a relatively stable environment, linear extrapolation of a trend can provide a relatively reliable view of the future. This is because the formula for the future is: more of the same, same old-same old, time stability hypothesis. Can you see the logical error? We know that we are living in times of dynaxity – in other words, a period that is simultaneously extremely dynamic and highly complex. Some even speak of a VUCA era – an age of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. On the other hand, we apply methods of forecasting that only function in a stable environment? Methods like trend extrapolation don’t work in turbulent times. In turbulent times, the ‘king of the hill’ is not a trend, but a structural break, a strategic surprise and the wild card (more about that later). What does that mean? Right tool, right future
Times have changed, but many still depend too strongly, and sometimes solely, on the old tools. The application of inappropriate foresight tools does not generally lead to the awareness of their unsuitability, but to a false security, which brings wrong decisions. In other words: the tool determines the result – “I am unable to loosen a spark plug from the engine block with a hammer”… Once this correlation is understood, you can also better understand the prevailing conditions in the energy sector and in many other industries. But take note: instruments like trend extrapolation are not inappropriate in principle. They also deliver reliable results beyond their actual validity limit – especially when combined with other instruments; for example, with some challenging scenarios and threatening ones, plus opportunity-promising wild cards. A combination of future tools? That sometimes creates problems in practice: combine how and with what? The following pages provide a precise answer to this question. Those who know the answers are already on their way to getting their future licence. Chapter by chapter, you will run through a complete process of strategic foresight, which you can subsequently implement in your company – with excellent practice transfer. What you learn on your journey through the strategic foresight world is not an outdated technical concept, but a pragmatic and practically-tested application. It doesn’t just look good; it is applied as best practice by a range of companies, for both the implementation as well as the execution of daily foresight work. Those who use and combine the right tools receive the ‘right’ future. This context is so simple that it is often misunderstood in practice. Many managers and politicians, as well as completely ‘ordinary people’, look into the future with the wrong instruments, because they succumb to illusions. We discuss and dismantle some of the most dangerous illusions below, while continuing to deal with them in later chapters as well, because they are the arch enemy of future management (scientifically seen, this type of an illusion is also known as a bias). The pedigree illusion
Mercedes drivers are different from VW Bug fans… Members of groups experience a feeling of belonging – that is the appeal of groups, teams, departments, units, industries and companies. This does not necessarily mean that members of the ‘in’ group think they are superior. But the choicer the pedigree and the genealogy, the harder it is for a person who is unqualified to resist this elitist temptation.2 Even if you don’t think of yourself as being special, concentration is usually subconsciously focused on activities and insights from your own group. ‘Structural holes’ are inevitably formed in the information flow from and to other groups. Findings are automatically devalued without being considered, simply because they come from another group. Some topics are just as subconsciously over-valued. A group, an industry, a company gradually becomes a closed system, which starts to stew in its own juices. It’s a dangerous situation which, fortunately, usually does not last very long, since it leads to the abrupt end of your business model. In contrast to this, success depends on closing up the structural holes in the information flow from and to the group, making the system more open, recognising and avoiding devaluing due to reflexive responses. It also cautions ‘don’t take yourself so seriously’, as the popular saying goes, which was a well-known aspect of the pedigree illusion in noble and feudal societies. The horizon illusion
Some time ago we conducted a study with the title “Energy – Quo vadis? 2035Plus: Scenarios for tomorrow’s energy sector”.3 One of the first reactions we received from decision-makers was to question the time horizon. Many practitioners asked what the sense was in looking so far into the future. They would have preferred selecting a period of five to eight years. That is interesting. If you yield to this idea and conduct a scenario study on the developments within the next five to eight years, the findings for all industries are consistently as follows: the processed differences between the scenario world and the status quo are often microscopically small. The thing that relieves and pleases many (the purpose of every illusion) is that the future doesn’t seem very different from the present. The view into the future doesn’t reveal anything revolutionary. The legitimate conclusion: keep everything just the way it is! This is the wrong conclusion – especially when the present is being ploughed up by severe upheavals. The message seems to be: the short-term perspective levels the future to the status quo. It can be fatal. Regarding the future, we don’t need cognitive myopia; what we need is an out-of-the-box perspective. Out of the box means: to look beyond horizons; to break out of your own, usually subconsciously imprisoned thoughts; unconventional, lateral thinking; and, above all, allowing things to happen. “Before you can think out of the box, you have to start with a box.”4 Twyla Tharp For this reason, it is wise to regularly take a good, hard look into the very distant future. When the time comes to transfer this long-term knowledge to your own company, then it is appropriate, important and purposeful to switch to the short-term perspective. There is no ‘better’ perspective. On the contrary, the following applies: A person with future competence combines long- and short-term perspectives: those who see more, see better. What distinguishes future-competent decision-makers is that they know how to perform perfectly within the various time horizons and don’t look forward just five years if they can think ahead 20 years and longer. This best practice ability, however, seems to be unequally distributed. Current KPMG analyses indicate that, in particular, major oil companies, exploration and mining companies work with scenarios. In comparison, the value-creation steps in the supply chain which are located further from the ‘source’ in the direction of the ‘sink’ are much less likely to be subject to scenarios and related tools of strategic foresight. This applies especially to engineering offices, suppliers and municipal energy suppliers. One could call this phenomenon an industry-specific supply chain paradox. Let us note: in regard to future competence, there is less need for a particularly far- or clear-sighted perspective, but more for an integrated vision of short-, medium- and long-term perspectives – and for registering the interactions of events. This is the way that a future-competent individual sharpens his or her understanding for the future. The study illusion
Of course, any reasonable decision-maker no longer relies exclusively on individual tools like trend extrapolation. Scenarios are among the year-long best practice options here, even though they are unequally distributed across the supply chain (see above). In...
