draft - u.s. forest service · 8/24/2012 · 2. foresight (vs. prediction): the sfg will recognize...

DRAFT

August 24, 2012

US Forest Service Strategic Foresight Group (SFG) Implementation Plan

1 US Forest Service Strategic Foresight Group Implementation Plan

April 2012

If your next project is not aligned with the problems, needs,

and desires of the future, the future is going to kill it.

- Thomas Frey

Strategic foresight is the ability to create and maintain a

high-quality, coherent and functional forward view and to use

the insights arising in organisationally useful ways; for

example: to detect adverse conditions, guide policy, shape

strategy.

- Richard Slaughter


April 2012

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Vision & Mission of the Strategic Foresight Group................................................................................................... 7

Vision ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Mission ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Uniqueness of the Strategic Foresight Group’s Mission ........................................................................................ 7

Guiding Principles, Organizational Structure, and Scope ......................................................................................... 8

Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Organizational Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Scope .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Positioning Statement: Core Functions Essential for Fulfilling the Mission .......................................................... 11

Creating Solutions: Applied Futures Research .................................................................................................... 11

Engaging Stakeholders: Communication and Science Delivery ........................................................................... 11

Spanning Boundaries: Networking and Bridge Building ...................................................................................... 11

Research Program: Creating Solutions through Applied Futures Research .......................................................... 12

Horizon Scanning .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Possible and Probable Futures ............................................................................................................................. 13

Preferred Futures / Visioning ............................................................................................................................... 14

Principles for Thinking about the Future .............................................................................................................. 14

Images of and Orientations Toward the Future ................................................................................................... 15

Action Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 16

Applied Futures Research .................................................................................................................................... 16

Communication & Science Delivery ..................................................................................................................... 16

Networking & Bridge Building ............................................................................................................................. 17

Operations ............................................................................................................................................................... 18

Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

Staffing ................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Executive Oversight Team ................................................................................................................................... 19

Budget ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Annual Personnel & Related Expenses by FY 2015 .............................................................................................. 20

Annual Revenues by FY 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 21

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................................ 22


April 2012

Executive Summary This plan describes a Forest Service futures group or “Strategic Foresight Group” (SFG) that will help create a

forward view and enhance foresight in the agency through:

a program of applied Futures Research focused on high-priority topics,

communication and science delivery, and

spanning boundaries between the futures community and the natural resource community.

The mission of the Strategic Foresight Group is unique. No other Forest Service unit has the mission or goal of

enhancing strategic foresight or applying the methods and perspectives of Futures Research.

Improved foresight can help planners, policy makers, and all stakeholders prepare for and shape the future of

natural resource management in a world of rapid change and great uncertainty. Possible benefits include: (1)

creating a longer-term perspective on current issues, (2) exploring key uncertainties and potential surprises,

especially those arising from other domains that could affect natural resource management; (3) decreasing

reaction time to rapid change; (4) anticipating unintended consequences of new technologies and social trends;

and (5) identifying and choosing preferred futures, thereby increasing options and possibilities in the present.

The primary goals contained within this implementation plan are as follows:

1. Build and staff the Strategic Foresight Group research program in modular fashion, within three to five years (see related Action Steps, p. 16).

2. Build the Strategic Foresight Group communication and science delivery program (Action Steps, pp. 16-17).

3. Develop and maintain connections between the Strategic Foresight Group and the Futures Research community in order to bring futures insights and perspectives into the natural resource management community (Action Steps, p. 17).

4. Revisit the direction and priorities of the Strategic Foresight Group every three to five years; review the action plan, budget, and staffing needs.

Proposed staffing of the Strategic Foresight Group is shown in Figure 1. The group will be assigned to the

Northern Research Station (NRS-09, “People and Their Environments”), but it will be a Forest Service unit with

science, management, and communications components. (See p. 18 for details on staffing). An Executive

Oversight Team, consisting of a leading representative from the FS Northern Research Station (NRS), Eastern

Region (R9), Northeastern Area (NA) S&PF, and the Northeaster Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF), will

provide oversight and input to the SFG (see p. 19).

Salaries and benefits for full-time staff will constitute the majority of the SFG’s expenses once the staffing plan is

fully implemented – within 2-3 years of operation, depending upon NRS hiring capabilities (Table 1). These

ongoing expenses will need to be covered through appropriated dollars in the Northern Research Station

budget. Additional funds will come from other Forest Service partners, special appropriations, federal grants

(e.g., JFSP), and foundation grants. (See pp. 20-21 for details on expenses and revenues).


April 2012

Figure 1. Proposed staffing and other inputs to the Forest Service Strategic Foresight Group.

Table 1. Annual expenses by FY 2015.

Expense Category Annual Funding

Salary & Benefits: Coordinator / Lead Scientist (GS-14) $150,000 Res. Soc. Scientist (GS-14) $150,000 Res. Soc. Scientist (GS-11) $90,000 Marketing / Communications Specialist (1/2 time) $45,000 Social Science Analyst / Res. Asst. (term) $50,000

Operations: Travel $20,000 Training $10,000 Supplies $5,000 Software $5,000

Grants & Agreements:

Research Joint Venture Agreements $100,000

Other $50,000

Total $675,000


April 2012

Introduction

“The faster the car, the further the headlights must go.” - Gaston Berger

The need for environmental foresight has increased in recent decades as the pace of change has accelerated and

the complexity of change has increased. Some have referred to the period following World War II as the “Great

Acceleration,” a time of significant increase in the scope, scale, and intensity of change (Hibbard et al. 2007). The

rapid pace of social, technological, economic, environmental, and political change has created a turbulent and

challenging environment for natural resource management agencies and their partners. We need to “look

beyond the headlights” and anticipate change.

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” - Bill Gates, 1981

But anticipating change is exceptionally difficult. Complexity theory is revealing the future of social-ecological

systems as fundamentally unpredictable. Ecological forecasts are filled with irreducible uncertainties due to

drivers beyond the scope of ecology, unknown feedbacks, and unpredictable human actions (Carpenter 2002).

Experience in the social sciences confirms that predictions of most social phenomenon are notably inaccurate.

Traditional scientific forecasting tools are blunt instruments for studying a future that does not exist (Figure 1).

Alternative methods and perspectives are needed to develop foresight and options for the future in a world of

great uncertainty.

“Futures studies helps us to ‘prepare for the unpredictable.’” – Wendell Bell

Futures Research is a transdisciplinary field of study that uses a variety of distinct methods and perspectives to

explore alternative futures in terms of what is possible, probable, or preferable. The goal is to anticipate and

prepare for potential change, develop a forward view, and use the insights (strategic foresight) gained in

organizationally useful ways such as discovering threats and opportunities, shedding light on alternative future

contexts for policy and strategy, helping to identify an organization’s preferred future, and preparing for a range

of possible futures.

“The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if

we make ourselves responsible for that future.” – Gifford Pinchot

Natural resource planners, managers, and policy makers have always sought to develop and apply strategic

foresight in order to make decisions that are judged to be wise in the long term. But the need for environmental

foresight has increased in the era of rapid change and multiple transformations in which we live. The Forest

Service Strategic Foresight Group (SFG) will enhance strategic foresight in the Forest Service and its partners

through a program of applied Futures Research, communication and science delivery, and spanning boundaries

between the futures community and the natural resource community.


April 2012

Figure 2. Traditional forecasting vs. strategic foresight. Traditional forecasting is limited by incomplete knowledge of highly

consequential factors that are largely unpredictable but

may have significant effects. Strategic foresight examines

driving forces and major uncertainties in a disciplined

manner to produce a range of plausible futures, so that

managers and policy makers can explore and prepare

possible responses in advance. Source: Weeks et al.

(2011).

“It is not the strongest of the

species who survive, nor the

most intelligent; rather it is those

most responsive to change.”

– Attributed to

Charles Darwin


April 2012


April 2012

Vision & Mission of the Strategic Foresight Group The vision and mission statements below were developed by the SFG Strategic Framework Team that met on January 13, 2012.

Vision

Our nation’s forests – from urban forests to wilderness – are healthier and provide greater value to all citizens because Forest Service and stakeholder decisions are rooted in a forward view of social-ecological systems.

Mission

Enhance strategic foresight in the Forest Service and other natural resource organizations.

Uniqueness of the Mission

The mission of the Strategic Foresight Group is unique. No other Forest Service unit has the mission or goal of enhancing strategic foresight or applying Futures Research. Past efforts to use the methods and perspectives of Futures Research in forestry and related fields have been rare, one-shot efforts (e.g., Shafer et al. 1974, Whaley 1985, David and Martin 1987). Outside of the Forest Service, there have been only a handful of efforts in environmental foresight in the U.S. The longest running effort to apply Futures Research to environmental issues is the work carried out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dating back to the early 1970s. A recent review of EPA’s Futures Research activities (Olson 2012) concluded that these efforts are fragile and could be easily lost because they have not been institutionalized in a way that will assure continuity. Organizations such as Resources For the Future (RFF) and Forest Trends are sometimes mistakenly assumed to have missions focused on Futures Research. Despite their names, RFF (http://www.rff.org/) and Forest Trends (http://www.forest-trends.org/) are not futures organizations. RFF is a natural resource policy think tank that focuses on economic analysis – rather than Futures Research – to inform policy, and Forest Trends promotes sustainable forest management using market-based approaches.

http://www.rff.org/

http://www.forest-trends.org/


April 2012

Guiding Principles, Organizational Structure, and Scope The following guidelines characterize the Strategic Foresight Group (SFG), inform its culture and priorities, describe how it will operate, and provide guidance for decisions that will be made during its lifespan.

Guiding Principles

1. Applied science: The SFG will base its research and technology transfer activities on applied Futures Research, and be informed by the extensive body of scholarly literature on Futures Research theory and practice.

2. Foresight (vs. prediction): The SFG will recognize the limits of our knowledge about the future: We

cannot accurately predict the future of complex social-ecological systems, but we can gain valuable foresight and develop strategic options for a range of possible, plausible, and preferable futures.

3. Futuring (vs. planning). Futures and foresight activities are distinct from strategic planning, although

there is a symbiosis and a widely recognized link between these two fields (Cole 2001) and Futures Research is a resource for planning and policymaking. Planning involves the development of a specific course of action to achieve stated goals; Futuring generates and examines a range of alternative possible, plausible and preferable futures, and provides essential context for the more specific concerns of planners.

4. Holistic approach: The SFG will take a holistic approach – employing multiple perspectives and methods

– to develop and enhance strategic foresight.

5. Participatory approaches: The SFG will engage stakeholders and employ participatory futures methods where appropriate, such as preferred futuring (Lippett 1998) and participatory scenario analysis (Gidley et al. 2009).

6. Boundary spanning: The SFG will serve as a bridge between the futures community and the natural

resource community. It is through boundary spanning that diffusion of futures thinking and tools to natural resource decision makers can take place efficiently and effectively.

Organizational Structure

1. A Unit within a Unit: The SFG will be a formal program within the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station research work unit NRS-09 (“People and Their Environments: Social Science Supporting Natural Resource Management and Policy”). Advantages of this approach, as opposed to creating a new, stand-alone research unit, include: (1) lower operating costs due to capitalizing on existing administrative support capacity in NRS-09, (2) greater productivity due to the SFG leader having significantly more time to focus on research and other activities directly related to fulfilling the mission, and (3) increased flexibility and responsiveness of the SFG due to more staff time being focused on Futures activities.

2. Small core staff: The SFG will include a leader with a small core staff not to exceed about 4 - 5 people in

total, including temporary employees.


April 2012

3. Core staff – research social scientists: The core staff could come from any mission area of the Forest Service. But it is critical, especially during the start-up phase, to have a predominance of research social scientists on the staff that will be responsible for creating, adapting, and applying futures tools, products, and services.

4. Leverage Futures Research capacity: The SFG will cost-effectively enhance its capacity to carry out its

mission through temporary members, including: Hiring post-docs or other temporary employees; sponsoring a program of Environmental Futures Fellows or visiting scientists; working with university faculty and graduate students through Research Joint Venture Agreements; providing office space and support for university professors looking for sabbatical opportunities; and working collaboratively with professional futurists and futures think tanks through contracts. These participants could work on current projects of the SFG, or develop their own projects that fit within the mission and goals of the SFG.

5. Virtual: The SFG will be virtual in nature. Staff members will not necessarily be in the same location (or

even FS unit), but will work together via videoconference, teleconference, or email. 6. Expandable: The SFG will expand its capacity and scope of work over time, as resources, expertise, and

demands allow.

7. Hub and spoke communication / technology transfer model: The people most in need of strategic foresight are senior leaders and policy makers in the FS, and senior leaders among FS partners, both internal and external to the government (e.g., State Foresters, Congressional staffers, Forestry Deans). Existing relationships between FS senior leadership and these partners are strong and therefore, rather than create a new set of relationships, the SFG will focus on providing results to FS senior leaders for them to share with key FS partners (see Figure 2).


April 2012

Figure 3. Hub and spoke communication / technology transfer model.

Scope

1. Multi-mission area scope: The SFG will be multi-mission area in scope and purpose (i.e., across mission

areas of the Forest Service: the National Forest System, State & Private Forestry, and Research & Development).

2. Geographic scope – Variable and appropriate to the task: The SFG will be national in scope with an initial focus on the Northeast and Midwest. Because attempts to dislocate regional issues from global drivers are a recipe for failure in futuring, the geographic scope of work will be variable.

3. Longer-term temporal scope: The SFG will focus primarily on longer-term and strategic futures (10 + years) rather than shorter-term operational and tactical futures.

4. Multiple-domain scope: The SFG will explore alternative futures relevant for natural resource decision makers. This will necessarily include examining trends and issues related to other domains (e.g., demographic, economic, social, cultural, technological, and scientific). Futurists take a systems approach to examining alternative futures, because they have found that changes in seemingly unrelated external areas can have unexpected and profound effects. As an example, think of the transformative effect the automobile had on use of the National Forests.

FS Senior

Leaders

State

Foresters

Congres-sional Staff

Other Key

Partners

Forestry

Deans


April 2012

Positioning Statement: Core Functions Essential for Fulfilling the Mission The following core functions broadly define the types of work in which the Strategic Foresight Group will engage to fulfill its mission of enhancing strategic foresight in the Forest Service. The Strategic Foresight Group focuses on:

Creating Solutions: Applied Futures Research

Applied Futures Research will be the core component of the SFG’s activities. The SFG will adapt and develop

research-based strategic foresight tools, products, and services designed to fulfill its vision and mission. As a

pioneering effort in strategic foresight applied to natural resource decision making, the SFG’s credibility and

success will depend on a solid foundation of applied Futures Research.

Engaging Stakeholders: Communication & Science Delivery

The SFG will effectively share the results of its research and related activities with Forest Service leaders and

policymakers and, through a hub and spoke communications model, with outside stakeholders and partner

organizations (Figure 2).

Spanning Boundaries: Networking & Bridge Building

The SFG will serve as a bridge between the futures community (e.g., World Future Society, World Futures

Studies Federation, Association of Professional Futurists, The Millennium Project) and the natural resource

community. Tapping into and sharing the expertise of academic and professional futurists and futures

organizations will be critical in helping the SFG fulfill its vision and mission. The goal of networking and

bridge building is to bring the insights and perspectives of futures into the natural resource management

community.

http://www.wfs.org/

http://www.wfsf.org/

http://www.wfsf.org/

http://www.profuturists.org/

http://www.millennium-project.org/


April 2012

Research Program: Creating Solutions through Applied Futures Research

A focused program of applied Futures Research is at the core of the Strategic Foresight Group’s work. The five themes of the research program will provide the knowledge base and tools essential for accomplishing its mission. Some of the research themes, such as Horizon Scanning and Preferred Futures / Visioning, involve the one-time development of particular products or tools (e.g., creating a system for horizon scanning) and then require ongoing implementation and science delivery work (e.g., updating and communicating the results of scanning). Other themes, such as Possible & Plausible Futures, require a long-term and ongoing research program involving a series of studies, as well as a sustained science delivery effort. In addition to the five applied Futures Research themes described in this section, the work of the Strategic Foresight Group will be informed and guided by ongoing basic and theoretical developments in Futures Research such as the knowledge foundations (Slaughter 1996) and ethical underpinnings (Bell 2004) of futures. But the mission of the SFG focuses on applied research aimed at enhancing strategic foresight in the Forest Service.

Figure 4. The five research themes of the Strategic Foresight Group.

Horizon Scanning

• Research: Develop horizon scanning system tailored to FS needs

• Science Delivery: Continuously update & communicate results

Preferred Futures / Visioning

• Research: Develop a preferred futures / visioning process

• Science Delivery: Workshops to create participatory preferred futures

Possible & Plausible Futures

• Research: A series of studies focusing on high priority issues & topics

• Science Delivery: Custom communication plan for each study

Principles for Thinking About the Future

• Research: Identify & synthesize key principles

• Science Delivery: Workshops, webinars, keynote presentations, etc.

Images of & Orientations Toward the Future

• Research: Develop & apply methods for assessing future orientations

• Science Delivery: Custom communication plan for each study


April 2012

1. Horizon Scanning: Scanning – also called horizon scanning, environmental scanning, or critical trends analysis – refers to a wide range of processes for identifying and understanding significant emerging trends in the external environment of an organization or an area of interest. The goal is to find nascent indications of future developments that may be important. Ideally, scanning serves as an early warning system to identify potential threats and opportunities. Scanning also provides the basis

for building valuable base-line knowledge about emerging trends. Gordon and Glenn (2009:4) characterize scanning as “the central input to futures research,” because scanning broadly for emerging trends is often a component of other futures methods. The Strategic Foresight Group will develop and maintain a horizon scanning system tailored to the needs of the Forest Service and its partners. This system will address questions such as: What are the most important emerging trends, developments, relationships, and issues that are likely to affect society and natural resources in the future? How can these trends and developments be identified and their potential significance analyzed and communicated to decision makers? A meta-scanning system (i.e., “scanning the scanners”) would be most practical and cost-effective. For example, a core component of the SFG horizon scanning system would be trends identified in published series such as the Millennium Project’s State of the Future report (Glenn et al. 2011), the World Future Society’s Outlook series (Futurist Editorial Staff 2010), the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ monthly horizon scanning newsletter (http://horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk), and the online scanning conducted by the U.S. Army’s Environmental Policy Institute (http://www.aepi.army.mil/).

Communication & Science Delivery: After developing a scanning system, updating it and communicating the results on an ongoing basis will primarily be a communication and science delivery function. Effectively communicating scanning results will require two-way communication and interaction between the SFG and users. A key element of effective scanning systems is ongoing feedback between management and the scanning team, so the system can “learn” to produce the most germane information and improve performance (Gordon and Glenn 2009).

2. Possible and Probable Futures: Exploring a range of possible and probable futures for a given area of interest is a central task of Futures Research. Studying probable futures focuses on the most likely future of some area of interest, i.e., the “baseline future” that would occur if things simply continue as expected. But as futurist Herman Kahn (1982: 82) stated, “The most likely future isn’t.” In other words, even what is

considered the most likely future is often a low probability event given the complex nature of social-ecological systems and the frequency of discontinuous change and surprise. Therefore it is vital to also examine a broader range of possible futures. The goal of exploring a range of possible futures is to prepare for alternative futures and thereby expand the scope of individual and social choice (Bell 1997). Scenario analysis is the most widely used Futures Research tool for helping decision makers and all stakeholders think creatively about a range of possible and probable futures. Glenn and The Futures Group International (2009: 2) define a scenario as “… a story with plausible cause and effect links that connects a future condition with the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and consequences throughout the narrative.” More than two dozen specific techniques for developing scenarios have been identified, and Bishop et al. (2007) discuss eight broad types of scenario development methods. The output of scenario analysis is a set of stories or narratives. The stories are not predictions, but represent a range of plausible or possible futures intended to help decision-makers and others build adaptive capacity to make their systems more resilient to change by

http://horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/

http://www.aepi.army.mil/


April 2012

preparing for a diverse set of alternatives and improving their ability to discuss and communicate those alternatives. Scenarios have increasingly been applied to environmental issues in recent years. There are growing numbers of large-scale environmental studies that include or are based on scenario methods. Examples include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (IPCC 2007), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Carpenter et al. 2005), and the World Water Vision Exercise (Cosgrove and Rijsberman 2000). Alcamo (2008) provides a wide-ranging examination of the practice of scenario analysis applied to environmental issues. Based in part on the results of horizon scanning, and using a variety of core Futures Research methods such as scenario analysis, the Strategic Foresight Group will investigate the possible and probable futures of high priority issues and topics related to natural resource planning, management, and policy (e.g., “The Future of Wildland Fire Management,” “The Future of Urban Forestry,” “The Future of Outdoor Recreation”). Specific topics to be examined will be determined in consultation with policy makers and other users. A series of studies such as this will identify emerging internal and external trends and issues related to the particular domain, examine possible cross-impacts, explore a range of possible and probable futures, and outline potential policy implications and action steps for managers and policy makers.

Communication & Science Delivery: Each study would have a targeted primary audience, require a custom communication plan, and involve a variety of science delivery approaches.

3. Preferred Futures / Visioning: Preferred futuring is a widely used method that mobilizes all stakeholders in a system to envision the future they want and then develop strategies to get there (Lippitt 1998). A vision is a compelling statement of the future that a group or organization wants to create based on shared deep values and purpose, or an idealized state that conveys the possibility of future attainment. Preferred futuring is often accompanied by “backcasting,” a futures approach that works backwards from a

preferred vision of the future in order to identify policies, programs, and planning that will connect the preferred vision of the future to the present. Images of the future are important because they enhance options and possibilities in the present. Costanza (2000: 1) expressed the importance of a positive vision of our environmental future: “The most critical task facing humanity today is the creation of a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable society.” Various forms of preferred futuring have been used by tens of thousands of organizations in recent decades (Lippitt 1998). The Strategic Foresight Group will review the substantial futures and business literature on visioning and develop a participatory preferred futuring process tailored to the needs of Forest Service leaders and decision makers.

Communication & Science Delivery: Once an effective visioning process has been developed and refined, then working with Forest Service leaders and partners through workshops or other means to create preferred futures would be a communication and science delivery function.

4. Principles for Thinking about the Future: Futurists have developed principles and perspectives for thinking creatively and deeply about the future and important insights into the nature of change (e.g., Bishop 1998, Hines and Bishop 2006, Inayatullah 1996). These principles and insights can help decision makers successfully navigate uncertainty and rapid change. “Thinking like a futurist” would be a valuable skill for planners, policy


April 2012

makers and decision makers. An example of a principle for thinking about the future is what Weiner and Brown (2006) call “trend / countertrend.” The principle is that most trends contain or create opposing forces and hence generate countertrends. A case in point is the trend of decline in the sense of community in our society (Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” thesis) and the countertrend of the rise of new forms of community (e.g., online communities, new social organizations, traditional neighborhood development). This principle points out the importance of not naively viewing a given trend as inevitable but actively looking for potential countertrends. Trends and their countertrends suggest that the future does not unfold on one straight line, but on many paths which may contain paradox and contradiction. Based on interviews with leading academic and consulting futurists and a review of the Futures Research literature, this component of the Strategic Foresight Group research program would focus on synthesizing key principles for effectively thinking about the future and developing key competencies in this area for all employees.

Communication & Science Delivery: Key principles for thinking about the future will be packaged and disseminated as a workshop, keynote presentation, webinar and/or web-based training.

5. Images of & Orientations toward the Future: Images of the future guide all decision making, planning, and policy. People’s image of or orientation toward the future is a key factor influencing present behavior “… as people either try to adapt to what they see coming or try to act in ways to create the future they want” (Bell 1997, p. 82). Thus, an important area of Futures Research is the study of images of the future, their content, causes, and consequences.

Understanding images of the future is essential in building foresight capacity in an organizational context, such as the Forest Service. Every organization has a tacitly accepted image of the future referred to by futurists as the “Official Future,” i.e., the set of implicit assumptions about the future behind most institutional policies. Most people in an organization subscribe to this view almost unconsciously and rely on it to guide decision making, policy formulation, and resource allocation. An organization’s Official Future is often based on the idea that “tomorrow will basically continue the experience of today,” (Schwartz 1996, p. 237). One of the first tasks in enhancing strategic foresight in an organization is to identify its Official Future so that we can see it for how likely or unlikely it is. People in these organizations often discover that, in laboring under the Official Future, they have been working toward an impossible or undesirable goal. Efforts to enhance strategic foresight must challenge the limitations of the Official Future. The Strategic Foresight Group will develop survey instruments or employ other methods (e.g., Q-methodology) for assessing (1) people’s orientations toward the future, and (2) an organization’s Official Future, and apply these methods to various contexts and groups within the Forest Service.

Communication & Science Delivery: A custom communication plan will be developed for each of the two types of studies mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In particular, the study to develop a method to assess an organization’s Official Future will require working closely with senior leaders and policy makers in the Forest Service.


April 2012

Action Plan The three goals in this section build upon the core functions essential for fulfilling the mission of the Strategic

Foresight Group discussed earlier: (1) Applied Futures Research, (2) Communication and Science Delivery, and

(3) Networking and Bridge Building. Specific steps for accomplishing these goals are listed below.

Creating Solutions: Applied Futures Research

1. Goal: Build and staff the Strategic Foresight Group Research Program in modular fashion, within 3-5 years.

Action Steps:

1.1 Identify and appoint a full-time SFG coordinator / lead scientist. Target date: July 2012.

1.2 Identify and hire temporary SFG staff (i.e., graduate students, post-docs) who will conduct research

within the five themes of the SFG Research Program. Target date: First temporary staff hired by

September 2012.

1.3 Develop a process (outreach, application, and logistics) for recruiting and hosting Research

Scientists as detailers, Visiting Scholars/Scientists, or Environmental Futures Fellows from other

Forest Service units, universities, or futures organizations. Target date: Fall 2012.

1.4 Hire 1 or 2 full-time staff scientists (permanent, term, contract, or detail) within the first two years

of operation. Target date for hiring first staff scientist: Spring 2013.

1.5 There are several factors complicating identification and hiring of qualified staff, including: (1)

individuals with experience and expertise in Futures Research – particularly environmental futures

– are extremely rare, and (2) individuals with expertise in Futures Research are typically in demand

in the corporate world, the military, or the intelligence community. Therefore, it will likely be

necessary to hire talented individuals with expertise in other fields (e.g., the human dimensions of

natural resources) and train them in the specific Futures Research method needed for a particular

project.

Engaging Stakeholders: Communication & Science Delivery

2. Goal: Build the Strategic Foresight Group Communication & Science Delivery Program

Action Steps:

2.1 The communication and science delivery program of the SFG will be carried out in partnership with

the communications professionals of the Northern Research Station’s Communications and Science

Delivery (CSD) group (http://fsweb.nrs.fs.fed.us/csd/).

2.2 Develop the SFG website. The website will include: (1) a summary of active research projects, (2)

ongoing results of the SFG horizon scanning activities, (3) completed research projects and their

products, (4) links to futures organizations (e.g., World Future Society, The Millennium Project,

Institute for Alternative Futures), (5) an archive of SFG e-newsletters, and other features. Target

date: Late fall 2012.

http://fsweb.nrs.fs.fed.us/csd/


April 2012

2.3 Develop a quarterly e-newsletter to be distributed widely to interested stakeholders. The

newsletter would summarize the activities of the SFG, highlight relevant futures activities in other

organizations, and provide a synopsis of emerging trends of importance to natural resource

planners, managers and policy makers. Target date: Winter 2013.

2.4 Host an annual one-day or half-day Futures Research and Science Delivery Symposium that will

feature the findings of SFG projects and partners, interactive educational and science delivery

sessions, and perhaps leading futurists addressing important topics in a keynote presentation. The

format is yet to be determined, but will likely be an online video symposium. Target date for first

symposium: Spring 2014.

Spanning Boundaries: Networking & Bridge Building

3. Goal: Develop and maintain connections between the Strategic Foresight Group and the Futures Research

community in order to bring futures insights and perspectives into the natural resource management

community.

Action Steps:

3.1 Actively participate in the main Futures Research professional organizations, especially the World

Future Society (http://www.wfs.org/), the Association of Professional Futurists

(http://www.profuturists.org/), and the World Futures Studies Federation (http://www.wfsf.org/),

through participation in annual conferences, training (short courses and workshops), and other

activities of these organizations. Target date: Ongoing.

3.2 Build and maintain professional relationships with leading academic and consulting futurists,

especially those with expertise that is of relevance to natural resource management and the

mission of the SFG. Target date: Ongoing.

3.3 Identify academic and professional educational programs in Futures Research to provide training

opportunities for SFG staff, such as the University of Houston’s strategic foresight certificate

program (http://www.tech.uh.edu/programs/professional/strategic-foresight) and the Global

Business Network’s scenario methodology short course (http://www.gbn.com/training/dus.php).

Target date: Ongoing.

3.4 Communicate insights and lessons learned through the above action steps to Forest Service leaders

through the SFG website, e-newsletter, the annual Futures Research and Science Delivery

Symposium, and other communications channels.

http://www.wfs.org/

http://www.profuturists.org/

http://www.wfsf.org/)

http://www.tech.uh.edu/programs/professional/strategic-foresight

http://www.gbn.com/training/dus.php


April 2012

Operations

The Strategic Foresight Group Mission and Vision reflect an organization that strives to be responsive to the

needs of Forest Service leaders and partner organizations. This section presents a plan for Management,

Staffing, and Oversight to ensure the SFG remains grounded, responsive, and cost-effective.

Management

General oversight and management of SFG staff, programs, and long-term strategic priorities will be directed by

a Coordinator and lead scientist. This position will be a full-time staff position affiliated with and funded by the

US Forest Service Northern Research Station, and will report to the leader of Northern Research Station

Workgroup NRS-09, “People and Their Environments: Social Science Supporting Natural Resource Management

and Policy.” The Project Leader of NRS-09 will provide an additional level of oversight and management.

Staffing As shown in Figure 5, the SFG will maintain a lean and flexible staff that will include both permanent and

temporary staff (e.g., graduate students, post-docs, detailers, or visiting scientists) and will include contributions

from full- or part-time detailers (planners / analysts) from Region 9 and NA S&PF. Administrative support will be

provided by existing NRS-09 support staff. In addition to the Coordinator / lead scientist, two full-time Forest

Service research social scientists will eventually constitute the full-time staff. These staff scientists may be full-

time permanent, term, contract, or detailed, depending upon fiscal considerations and the discretion of the NRS

Station Director. These staff positions may be filled as funding becomes available. However, the success of the

SFG will be largely dependent on the scientific research it generates; because of this, staff positions should be

hired as soon as possible, with all positions filled no later than 2015. The staff will also include a marketing and

communications specialist who will be vital to fulfilling the Communication and Science Delivery function.

Additional capacity in marketing and communications will be provided by the NRS Communications and Science

Delivery group.

Training for staff: As mentioned earlier, complicating factors in identifying and hiring qualified research

staff, whether temporary (graduate students, post-docs) or permanent (staff scientists), are that (1)

individuals with experience and expertise in Futures Research – particularly environmental futures – are

rare, and (2) individuals with expertise in Futures Research are typically in demand in the corporate world,

the military, or the intelligence community. Therefore, it will likely be necessary to hire talented social

scientists and train them in Futures Research or, for temporary staff, train them in the specific Futures

method needed for a particular project. Examples of training opportunities are the one and two day

workshops and master courses at the World Future Society annual conferences

(http://www.wfs.org/worldfuture-2012/special-events/master-courses), the five day Strategic Foresight

short course at the University of Houston (http://tech.uh.edu/programs/professional/strategic-foresight/),

and Global Business Network’s week long course in “Developing and Using Scenarios”

(http://www.gbn.com/training/dus.php).

http://www.wfs.org/worldfuture-2012/special-events/master-courses

http://tech.uh.edu/programs/professional/strategic-foresight/

http://www.gbn.com/training/dus.php


April 2012

Figure 5. Proposed staffing and other inputs to the Forest Service Strategic Foresight Group.

Executive Oversight Team

The Executive Oversight Team (EOT) will be comprised of a leading representative from each of the USDA Forest

Service organizations involved in the founding and creation of the Strategic Foresight Group:

Northern Research Station (NRS)

Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry (NA S&PF)

Eastern Region (Region 9)

Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters

Each EOT member will serve a two year term, at which point the current EOT member may choose to re-

nominate him or herself to the team, or select and nominate an alternate from within his/her organization.

Initial EOT membership includes: Michael Rains, NRS; Tony Ferguson, NA S&PF; Chuck Myers, Region 9; and Ian

MacFarlane or Paul Tauke, Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters.


April 2012

The EOT will convene at least once annually, along with the SFG Coordinator, preferably at the beginning of each

Fiscal Year. The SFG Coordinator will be responsible for submitting an annual report and budget to the EOT in

advance of their annual meeting.

Budget

Salaries and benefits for full-time staff will constitute the majority of the SFG’s expenses once the staffing plan is

fully implemented (within 2-3 years of operation, depending upon NRS hiring capabilities); these ongoing

expenses will need to be covered through appropriated dollars in the Northern Research Station budget. The

staffing plan calls for appointing or hiring a full-time GS-14 SFG Coordinator / lead scientist, and 1-2 full-time GS-

11 to 14 research social scientists and/or specialists. Ongoing funding for projects and temporary staff will need

to be secured from a combination of general appropriations, special appropriations, 3rd party grants from

government institutions and/or foundations, and in-kind contributions from partner organizations. The SFG will

rely heavily on its partner network to become involved in grant applications, funding opportunities, and projects

that are relevant to the SFG Mission, Vision, and Research Program.

The SFG currently has $164,000 in funding from the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) for a research project on

“The Future of Wildland Fire Management in a World of Rapid Change and Great Uncertainty: Innovative

Perspectives from Futures Research.” This funding will allow hiring a half-time graduate research assistant from

the University of Minnesota for one and a half years, and will fund working with a futurist and senior fellow at

the Institute for Alternative Futures. Along with the full-time staff position for the SFG Coordinator / lead

scientist, funded by the US Forest Service Northern Research Station, the JFSP funding will allow for the

implementation of some of the initial activities and projects contained within this plan. However, additional

funding for will be required to make substantial progress on the mission of the SFG. A simplified, preliminary

budget is included on the following pages and is summarized below. It will be the responsibility of the SFG

Coordinator to manage and update this budget as appropriate once the SFG is officially launched.

Annual Personnel & Related Expenses by FY 2015

Table 1 roughly approximates full time staffing needs and related annual expenses by 2015. While it is

recommended that the SFG Coordinator / lead scientist be a full-time permanent employee, each of the other

positions may be full-time permanent, term, contract, visiting scholar, or extended detail positions, depending

upon fiscal circumstances and/or the preference of the NRS Station Director.


April 2012

Table 1. Annual expenses by FY 2015.

Expense Category Annual Funding

Salary & Benefits: Coordinator / Lead Scientist (GS-14) $150,000 Res. Soc. Scientist (GS-14) $150,000 Res. Soc. Scientist (GS-11) $90,000 Marketing / Communications Specialist (1/2 time) $45,000 Social Science Analyst / Res. Asst. (term) $50,000

Operations: Travel $20,000 Training $10,000 Supplies $5,000 Software $5,000

Grants & Agreements:

Research Joint Venture Agreements $100,000

Other $50,000

Total $675,000

Expected Annual Revenues by FY 2015

Table 2 represents an expected breakdown of revenues by FY 2015. Under these estimates, it is expected that all

full-time permanent staff expenses will be covered by $450,000 of annual appropriations to the Strategic

Foresight Group. Carryover funding and grants will be used for project funding through Research Joint Venture

Agreements and Challenge Cost Share Agreements with partner organizations; these agreements will carry the

added benefit of significant partner contributions (both financial and in-kind) to the SFG. In addition, once the

SFG scales up its staff, it is expected that the Coordinator and staff scientists will successfully compete for about

$100,000 of grant funding on an average annual basis.

Table 2. Annual revenues by FY 2015.

Revenue Category Annual Funding

Federal (about 75%) General appropriations $450,000 Special appropriations (carryover) $50,000 Federal grants (e.g., JFSP) $100,000

Non-Federal (about 25%) Foundation & other grants $100,000

Total $700,000


April 2012

Literature Cited

Alcamo, J., editor. 2008. Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Bell, W. 1997. Foundations of Futures Studies, Volume 1: History, Purposes, and Knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bell, W. 2004. Foundations of Futures Studies, Volume 2: Values, Objectivity, and the Good Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bengston, D. N., G. H. Kubik, and P. C. Bishop. 2012. Strengthening environmental foresight: potential contributions of futures research. Ecology and Society 17(2): 10. [online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04794-170210

Bishop, P. 1998. Thinking like a futurist. The Futurist 32(5):39-42.

Bishop, P, A. Hines, and T. Collins. 2007. The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9(1):5-25.

Carpenter, S. R. 2002. Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now. Ecology 83(8):2069-2083.

Carpenter, S. R., P. L. Pingali, E. M. Bennett, and M. B. Zurek, editors. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: volume 2 scenarios - findings of the Scenarios Working Group (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series). Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Cole, S. 2001. Dare to dream: bringing futures into planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4):372-383.

Cosgrove, W. J., and F. R. Rijsberman. 2000. World water vision: making water everybody’s business. World Water Council. Earthscan, London, U.K.

Costanza, R. 2000. Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conservation Ecology 4(1):5. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5

David, James B. and Robert E. Martin (technical coordinators). 1987. Proceedings of the Symposium on Wildland Fire 2000, April 27-30, 1987, South Lake Tahoe, California. General Technical Report PSW-101. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 258 p. URL: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27663

Gidley, J. M., J. Fien, J. A. Smith, D. C. Thomsen, and T. F. Smith. 2009. Participatory futures methods: towards adaptability and resilience in climate-vulnerable communities. Environmental Policy and Governance 19(6):427-440.

Glenn, J. C., and The Futures Group International. 2009. Scenarios. In J. C. Glenn and T. J. Gordon, editors, Futures research methodology—version 3.0 (CD-ROM). The Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., USA.

Glenn, J. C., T. J. Gordon, and E. Florescu, editors. 2011. 2011 State of the future (CD-ROM). The Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., USA.

http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27663


April 2012

Gordon, T. J., and J. C. Glenn. 2009. Environmental scanning. In J. C. Glenn, and T. J. Gordon editors, Futures research methodology—version 3.0 (CD-ROM). The Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., USA.

Futurist Editorial Staff. 2010. Outlook 2011 (supplement). The Futurist 44(6):10 pages.

Hibbard, K. A., P. J. Crutzen, E. F. Lambin, D. M. Liverman, N. J. Mantua, J. R. McNeil, B. Messerli, and W. Steffen. 2007. Group report: decadal-scale interactions of humans and the environment. Pages 341-375 in R. Costanza, L.J. Graumlich, and W. Steffen, editors. Sustainability or collapse? an integrated history and future of people on earth. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Hines, A., and P. Bishop, editors. 2007. Thinking about the future: guidelines for strategic foresight. Social Technologies, Washington, D.C., USA.

Inayatullah, S. 1996. What futurists think. Futures 28(6/7):509–517.

IPCC. 2007. Summary for policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds., Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [online] URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Kahn, H. 1982. The coming boom: economic, political and social. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, USA

Lippitt, L. L. 1998. Preferred futuring. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, California, USA.

Olson, B. 2011. Environmental futures research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, June 4-8, 2011, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Schwartz, P. 1996. The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. Currency Doubleday, New York, New York, USA.

Shafer, E. L., G. H. Moeller, and R. E. Getty. 1974. Future leisure environments. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, USA. RP NE-301.

Slaughter, Richard A. 1996. New Thinking for a New Millennium: The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies. Routledge.

Weeks, Don, Patrick Malone, and Leigh Welling. 2011. Climate change scenario planning: A tool for managing parks into uncertain futures. Park Science 28(1): 26-33.

Weiner, E. and A. Brown. 2006. FutureThink: How to Think Clearly in a Time of Change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Prentice Hall.

Whaley, Ross. 1985. A focus on the future. Pages 19-36 in: J. W. Creighton, J. A. Jolly, S. Laner (eds.), Technology transfer: A think tank approach to managing innovation in the public sector. U.S. Forest Service, Naval Postgraduate School, naval Material Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. URL: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a453493.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a453493.pdf

draft - u.s. forest service · 8/24/2012 · 2. foresight (vs. prediction): the sfg will recognize...

Documents